Level Playing Field for All?: Female Political Leadership and Athletics

Level Playing Field for All? Level Playing Field for All? Female Political Leadership and Athletics Leanne Doherty ...

Author: Leanne Doherty

57 downloads 536 Views 259KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Level Playing Field for All?

Level Playing Field for All? Female Political Leadership and Athletics

Leanne Doherty

LEXINGTON BOOKS A division of ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.

Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

Published by Lexington Books A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 http://www.lexingtonbooks.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2011 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Doherty, Leanne, 1974– Level playing field for all? : female political leadership and athletics / Leanne Doherty. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-7391-4838-9 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-7391-4840-2 (electronic) 1. Women political candidates. 2. Women athletes. 3. Sports—Sociological aspects. 4. Prestige. 5. Social status. I. Title. HQ1236.D63 2011 324.6082—dc22 2011014714 Printed in the United States of America

™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American

National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Contents

Acknowledgments

vii

1.

Sports and Politics: The Perfect Combination?

1

2.

The Athlete as Political Elite

9

3.

The Social Eligibility Pool, Gender, and Athletic Elites

21

4.

Athletic Experience and Electoral Success

33

5.

Title IX and Access to Athletic Opportunity

49

6.

The Future of Female Athlete Politicians

65

Bibliography

77

Index

85

v

Acknowledgments

Like in sports, one is only as successful as the team around them. I am very grateful to have the support of family, friends, and colleagues throughout the creation and completion of this project. It is important that I first thank the current and former members of Congress who allowed me to interview them for this book. It was through their firsthand insights that I was able to clearly see a connection between sports and politics. I appreciate their time, ideas, and thoughtfulness. Christopher Bosso, Eileen McDonagh, and William Crotty were instrumental in the completion of this project. Their vast wealth of knowledge on issues of policy, gender, and elections is unparalleled, and I thank them each for their support. My department colleagues at Simmons College are in the truest sense team players. Cheryl Welch was my first academic captain, who pushed me to clarify my research questions and allowed me to grow as a researcher. Kirk Beattie supported my project through positive reinforcement and a willingness to let me know to take a time out when I needed it. Zach Abuza became a role model for those who want to have a true balance between research and teaching. Catherine Paden provided the support and friendship that I needed to finish this project. Others at Simmons offered unique skills—Daren Graves, Ruth Fasoldt, Suzanne Leonard, Diane Raymond, Valerie Leiter, and Kelly Hager—without which this project would have never been completed. Jessica Rudis, Amanda Mooers, and Elisabeth Woronzoff were more than research assistants; they used their immeasurable talents to make this piece a much better project.

vii

viii

Acknowledgments

I was fortunate to receive grant support to research and write the project. I am grateful to the Simmons Fund for Faculty Research, which allowed me numerous trips to Washington, DC, for interviews. My family and friends have been patient and understanding during this process. Tara Allen, Dina Mastroni, Andrea Proctor, and Liz McQuilkin—thank you for being my teammates in basketball and in life after college. Kate O’Neill, Jane Kokernak, and Catherine Paden—thank you for always being there with a supportive phone call or email. To Jim and Elaine Doherty—thank you for being the parents that you are and believing in my dreams in sports and beyond. Thanks to my siblings Kristin and Matthew Doherty, who always knew I would complete this project, even when I didn’t. And finally, thank you to my favorite teammates, Mark and Donovan Mason. Mark, thank you for giving up your summer to allow me to finish this project and your unwavering love and support. Donovan, thank you for coming into my life.

Chapter 1


“I always tell people that a cloak room is very much like a locker room. You have people from all different backgrounds—urban, rural, poor, rich, black, white, and in those kinds of diverse environments you have to get along either to be a legislator or a part of a team. Basketball is a part of a team—it’s a unique preparation.” —Tom McMillan (D), former member, House of Representatives, personal interview

Sports are ever more important in American political life as candidates try to make themselves as attractive as possible in this era of “candidate-centered” politics. Long a tradition for male candidates and office holders (e.g., horseback riding and hunting for Teddy Roosevelt, touch football and sailing for the Kennedys, and golf for any number of presidents), the use of sports imagery to make the candidate more appealing and worthy of recognition has worked well for many current male politicians. Sports imagery has also begun to work for women in America. Since the enactment of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972,1 whose exact language reads, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” women in record numbers have been able to participate in athletics at both the high school and collegiate levels. Given what we know about social eligibility, does this mean that we will also see more women using their achievement in sports as springboards to political office? And if so, will changes that may narrow the reach of Title IX serve to make it more difficult for women to succeed politically? 1

2

Chapter 1

While success in sports certainly does not guarantee electoral victory, it can carry enormous influence. Life for Senator Jim Bunning (R, KY) before winning a seat in the nation’s most prestigious legislative body had a great deal to do with a different kind of success. Bunning was a star pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, and Los Angeles Dodgers. With a record of 224–184 and 2,855 strikeouts, he was a seven-time All-Star and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996.2 Along the way, Bunning became a legend in his home state of Kentucky, and the name recognition that he built during his Hall of Fame career was a key factor in his victory in 1998. There is no doubt that the Senator was a gifted, successful, and popular athlete. But how did his athletic success qualify him to be a member of the U.S. Congress? We know from many studies of congressional elections that name recognition is a key to success or failure. But it is not just simple name recognition or basic popularity that enabled Bunning to connect with the voters; what mattered more was how he used his experience as a professional athlete as a metaphor for his potential ability to lead in the political sphere. Bunning’s official biography stresses his athletic experience as evidence of his potential for success in elected office. “[H]e is no stranger to winning . . .”; “(h)e displayed a competitive spirit and a willingness to work hard . . .”; and probably the most revealing sentence, “The same competitive spirit that made Jim Bunning a Hall of Famer in baseball has also served him well in political office.”3 Bunning’s biography leaves no doubt that his athletic experience was a critical leadership training ground for in his political career. It was on the baseball diamond that he first demonstrated the willingness to work hard and the competitive spirit that resulted in winning. If it is not completely clear that these attributes—hard work, competition, etc.—are in fact essential for success in politics, they certainly are very useful in extolling a candidate’s credibility. Deborah Stone calls this an inadvertent causal story or discursive frame; if the actions were purposeful, the consequences of those actions were unintended.4 Senator Bunning probably was not thinking of a political career while he was pitching, yet his success on the mound would bring him the cache to be successful off of it. We see similar discursive frames offered by former Rep. J. C. Watts, who used his fame as a star quarterback at Oklahoma to serve five terms in the House; by current Rep. Tom Osborne, the iconic former football coach of Nebraska; by former Seattle Seahawks receiver and Hall of Famer Steve Largent, and so on. All of these men were able to take athletic experiences not directly related to politics and make them an important part of their campaigns and careers.


3

Former athletes aren’t the only candidates who tout successful sporting careers to claim leadership credentials and attract voters. Representative Anne Meagher Northup (R-KY 3) uses the Olympic success of her sister Mary T. Meagher to stress her patriotism and her attachment to success. At the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, “[I]t was a wonderful time for our family and a wonderful time to be an American . . . nothing makes you more proud than watching the American flag being raised at a gold medal ceremony and listening to our national anthem.”5 Although the athletic experience was not her own, Rep. Northup uses the same language expressed by Senator Bunning to stress the assets of teamwork, leadership skills, and strength that have long been deemed essential to a politician, even before September 11, 2001. Sports images and analogies are being used more and more by candidates to show their viability in office. As this study will make clear, candidates for political office have looked increasingly to sports experiences, whether their own or others, amateur or professional, as another trait that qualifies them to hold public office. Be it a result of playing for the local high school football team, coaching a daughter’s softball team, or making athletics a primary occupation, aspiring politicians increasingly utilize images of leadership once reserved largely for those with military experience. For its part, a voting electorate that today is more likely to have some personal experience in sports at some level as opposed to military experience in any context regards the use of sports metaphors and portrayals of leadership through sports as legitimate qualifications in candidates and office holders. This study examines the implications of these trends. Political science research on candidate recruitment and elections shows that women traditionally do not run for political office as readily as men.6 However, when they do run, they are as likely to win as are their male counterparts—but only if they possess those same characteristics of viability seen as integral to electoral success. These traits include education, occupation, and past political experience, to name a few. Traditionally, career paths and other venues that led to elected office favored men or were only open to men. This has changed some, but not entirely. A major concern for democratic theorists is that the established elites in society that exist in the United States are more likely to be men than women, and these male elites are more likely to be seen as viable candidates for office. Athletics are an important part of society, so important that they play a dramatic role in the economic, social, and most recently, political aspects of life. Athletes become celebrities. These athletes, in turn, become elites in society and achieve levels of influence that for them are unparalleled in history. The

4

Chapter 1

rise of the athlete-politicians is clear, if not everywhere, and the traits essential to success in athletics (e.g., leadership, teamwork, motivation) are used more and more as campaign bullet points. But as athletics become a visible foundation for careers in politics, the unequal opportunities for female athletes in both collegiate and professional sports once again raises issues of barriers to access for women in politics. The accepted disparity in sports, rooted in socialized ideas of proper roles for men and women, creates for women unequal access to a “social eligibility pool” that ultimately defines the characteristics most likely to present a successful political candidate. Professional athletes in particular comprise a new elite occupation that confers political eligibility on participants. Given the disparities between opportunities for men and women in professional sports, for women, participation in athletics at the amateur level becomes an even more important factor in meeting social eligibility requirements. As a result, any major changes in opportunities for women in amateur sports will have disproportionate effects on the capacity for women to gain access to the social eligibility pool that defines political careers.

WOMEN AND ELECTED OFFICE Those who are successful in achieving a position in politics in the United States more often than not come from privileged segments of society. They usually have a post-graduate training, most commonly a law degree, know the right people, have the connections to make high incomes, and are often recruited by others influential in politics. Occupation is an important factor in achieving success when running for office. Women who are able to win a seat in Congress historically have not followed the same career paths as their male counterparts. This said, career paths of successful male politicians are now more readily open to women. For example, half of all law students are now women, so if a law degree is a basic foundation for a political career, it might be assumed that women would start to make strides in closing the gap between male and female political leadership. Such assumptions are based on assessments of career paths for successful elected officials. These studies show that the previous occupations held by members of Congress have a great deal to do with their eventual success at achieving their positions in the legislature. Of course, some of these favored occupational paths still are more open to men than women. What happens when there is an occupation that is gaining a great deal of prestige in society


5

that does not offer equal opportunities for men and women to participate? The “glass ceiling” in the working world has started to disappear, even if wage gaps still exist, yet there remains a great disparity between the amount of women and men who make “sports” and careers that are derived from “athletics” their profession. Would that lack of equality be another factor in the lack of female political leadership in the United States? Professional athletics is one of but a handful of occupations that is still openly segregated by gender. Even with the dramatic increase in the number of women participating in athletics and even as female athletes gain fame, the rules, sponsorship, endorsements, and most important, pay of professional sports continue to favor the men. Therefore, it is important to look at amateur athletic experience as a stepping stone for women and political office.

OVERVIEW This project expands the discussion of social eligibility pool characteristics in a way that has not been done before—by adding athletic participation to the mix. It also increases the level of understanding as to why women have trouble achieving political office in the United States through a combined approach of looking at the dynamics of electoral politics and public policy to explain the pipeline of women in politics. In Chapter 2, a discussion of political elites takes place, with an emphasis on the economic elite and celebrity status. These two arenas are where the elite athlete claims his or her viability as a political elite. By looking at previous elite literature and more modern analysis of sports and society, a connection between athlete and ruling class can be made. Chapter 3 continues with an analysis of the social eligibility pool and gender. A candidate who may be lacking in characteristics of the social eligibility pool, especially political efficacy and political experience, could use his or her athletic experience to make up for these deficiencies. Strength, leadership, teamwork, an unwillingness to quit, all can be shown through a simple anecdote of a past game or an exciting play in which the candidate once participated. Given the popularity of sports and the prevalence of sporting metaphors in popular culture, candidates who can exhibit such connections become more viable to the voting population. This could be especially important for the female elite athlete who has her eyes set on running for public office someday. Chapter 4 answers the first of two questions. One, what role, if any, does athletic experience play in running for elected office in the United States?

6

Chapter 1

Does visible participation in organized sports make for more credible and successful candidates? This question will be answered through an analysis of the Congressional Democratic and Republican candidates’ campaign biographies from the years 2002–2004, as well as through interviews with prominent elite athletes and coaches who have gone on to political success. This is where, I argue, the importance of athletics as a foundation for political candidacy arises. Candidates who identify themselves as athletes at one period of time or another use it in their campaign literature to exhibit the characteristics of a person qualified to run for office, not just because they may be considered elites. Biographical material will be coded again for the “social eligibility characteristics” as well as region, party, and ultimate success or failure. In doing so, I will show a connection between athletic participation and candidates’ presentations of self, adding one more factor to those qualifications described under the heading of the social eligibility pool. The second question is more complicated and is the subject of chapter 5. If having athletic experience does matter, what are the ramifications of putting limits on the very policy that has allowed women greater access to sports at the high school and college level? Would any changes in Title IX guarantees serve to constrict access for women in amateur sports? More important, would such a reduction in access to sports further constrict women’s access to elected office? To address these questions, I will assess Title IX, its successes, its failures, and most relevant for this study, look at current debates of changes in the law, and what, if any, effect such changes would have on women’s access to what have become desirable stepping stones to political careers. The underlying argument throughout this study is that access to amateur athletics has become a disproportionately important foundation for women’s careers, so any changes in the equality language in Title IX will be another factor that will inhibit women from being seen as viable candidates by the voting public. Chapter 6 elaborates on this point as well as argues for a reassessment of the argument that Title IX is the reason behind the demise of smaller male athletics at the university level.

Notes 1. 20 U.S.C.1681 et seq. 2. Jim Bunning’s Stats Page, Baseball Almanac. 3. http://www.bunning.senate.gov/bio.hrm (10 June 2008).


7

4. Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making (New York: WW Norton, 2002), 20. 5. http://www.northupforcongress.com/contents/about/2.shtml (1 Mar 2008). 6. See Burrell, Barbara. A Woman’s Place Is in the House (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994); Thomas, Sue. How Women Legislate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. Women, Elections, and Representation, 2nd ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994).

Chapter 2


“While some may think it a peculiar path from football to public policy, it’s insightful to know that while his teammates tuned in to Sports Center, Jay was more often found watching Meet the Press and CNN. . . . For good or ill, professional athletes are given a public platform due to the very public nature of their profession. Jay recognized the opportunity he’d been given, and was very intentional about championing the issues most important to him. As a regular speaker at father & son retreats, leadership breakfasts, and community events, Jay stressed the importance of faith, personal integrity, hard work, responsibility, prioritizing marriage and fatherhood, and the sacredness of life.”1 —Federal Campaign Web site for Jay Riemersma, Former Buffalo Bill and Pittsburgh Steeler

It is no stretch to suggest that those who do reach the pinnacle of athletic success in the United States become, in the sense used by social scientists, elites. They define consumer and cultural trends, their actions affect the economy, and most important for this discussion, they almost automatically became politically important, whether simply as symbols of viability or more recently as potential office-seekers. Athletes can be defined as both economic and celebrity elites. Both groups have the ability to influence those in political power and gain political power themselves. Therefore, athletes can also be political elites in American society. The number and significance of former athletes who have used their elite status to build successful political careers suggest that athletics should be added to the more traditional occupations (e.g., law, business) seen as stepping stones to political office.

9

10

Chapter 2

In arguing that athletics has now become a legitimate career, not just a hobby, it is possible to argue that the influence of sports in the political arena is not a flash in the pan and needs to be analyzed more closely. Surprisingly, the relationship between sports and politics has gone through little rigorous analysis.2 Discussion typically focuses around the following issues: the economic and political ramifications of building new athletic facilities; the political ramifications of the Olympics; globalization and nationalism through sport; sports and society/culture; and sports and underrepresented groups (race, gender, sexual orientation). I argue that we need to look at the role of sports, politics, and the individual’s desire to run for and success at achieving public office more closely. How does the participation in elite athletics make one a legitimate player in the American political system? For that answer, we need to look at the ever-changing members of the elite class.

POLITICAL ELITES What does it mean to be a political elite in American society? It seems to be counterintuitive that elites would exist in a political system predicated on the rule of the many; however, political elites have always existed, and they will be inevitable even as those who are elite change. Since the seminal works of Mosca and Pareto in the first half of the 20th century,3 political scientists and sociologists have been attempting to define the characteristics that make up the ruling few of American democracy. Susan Keller, in her work Beyond the Ruling Class, defines the elite as a “minority of individuals designated to serve a collectivity in a socially valued way.”4 More bluntly, power is concentrated in the hands of a small minority who dictate the policy decisions and policy players in the system. Elites all share the following three characteristics: “a group whose superiority rests on special acquired skills and talents; a group whose superiority is traditional and quite possibly unspecialized; and a group constituting a reservoir of skills and talents of all kinds.”5 Over time, elites gain power and hold on to it, thus affecting all aspects of social, political, and economic life. How this minority group gets to a position of power has long been debated by scholars—Mosca and Michaels6 are responsible for the classic elite theory, based on an organizational approach. Pareto researches through a psychological approach, while Burnham7 considers the economics of the elite thesis. C. Wright Mills8 takes an institutional approach, and Putnam9 evaluates elites from a systems model perspective.10 More recently, Domhoff11 has evaluated the role of elites and the changing power demographic of the United States. It is with these classic and more modern theories as a


11

background that elite athletes and coaches12 are presented as a “new” minority in the ruling class. The individuals who make up the political elite change over time. Membership that once was limited to what was referred to by President Eisenhower to as the “Military Industrial Complex” now includes CEOs of corporations, members of the media, political leaders, and rock stars. Although they may be from different arenas, they have similar traits that make them powerful. They are leaders in their field, they have expert knowledge and skill, they know each other and what the skill set of each member is, and they tend to be members of the upper social class.13 According to Mills, all elites have social similarities—no matter the elite strata from which they come.14 Some athletes and coaches have reached the level of elites in American society. No longer are elites defined by your family name or by some institutionalized system of leadership that has been seen in oligarchies of the past. By being leaders in their field, earning huge amounts of money for participating, and therefore becoming part of the upper social class of American society, elite athletes and coaches, it can be argued, have the same political viability as members of other groups who had not served in any previous political capacity. More specifically, athletes and elite athletics in general have made their way to the upper echelon of American society in two major areas: as an economically powerful group and as celebrities. Because of their prominence in these areas, elite athletes are members of a new generation of political elites. And as former political elites tend to foster new political elites, it only seems logical to see the success of former athletic superstars in the political arena.

ATHLETES AS ECONOMIC ELITES In The Managerial Revolution, Burnham discusses the rise of a social class based on “managers”; these managers demand and gain power in a capitalist system based on their wealth and spending power.15 In the twenty-first century, the definition of who is a manager in their field can be more broadly defined. Based on the revenue-generating power of athletics in the United States and the prestige that comes with that economic power, for the individual and the industry, elite athletics have to be considered part of the economic elite. According to the United State Department of Labor, jobs related to athletics (athletes, coaches, umpires, and related workers) are expected to increase “faster than the average of all occupations,” with a job growth of 15 percent between the years 2006 and 2016. The number of workers who gain their

12

Chapter 2

employment solely based on participation in athletics will grow by 19% with an increase of roughly 3,500 positions. “Employment will grow as the general public continues to participate in organized sports for entertainment, recreation, and physical conditioning. Increasing participation in organized sports by girls and women will boost demand for coaches, umpires, and related workers. Job growth also will be driven by the increasing number of baby boomers approaching retirement, during which they are expected to participate more in leisure activities such as golf and tennis which require instruction.”16 How much revenue is produced by this professional arena? Professional sports have always occupied a major place in the American culture, but in recent decades they also have been a major component of the national economy. The North American professional sports industry, including TV and athletes’ endorsements, was a $225 billion business in 2006, according to Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal. Even with the recent economic downturn, to which the world of athletics has not been immune, people are still buying tickets to attend their favorite teams’ games in record numbers and at record prices. For example, according to Team Marketing Reports Fan Cost Index Survey (FCI), the average family of four will spend about $200 at a major league baseball game, with the most expensive ball park being the New Yankee Stadium, with a ball game costing that same family over $410. The economic importance of sports can also be seen in the monetary value of professional franchises. According to the 2008 Forbes Sports List, the New York Knicks is the most valuable team in the National Basketball Association at $613 million with revenue including merchandise sales, a new arena, and television revenue. The average value of a team in the National Football League is $223 million, with the Dallas Cowboys franchise worth over $1 billion. In baseball, the Boston Red Sox were sold in 2002 for $750 million. The naming rights to Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA, cost $7.5 million dollars a year.17 For their part, individual athletes now routinely earn millions of dollars a year in salary and endorsements. The minimum salary for a player in the NBA is $473,000, and most players earn well over $1 million. The same high wages hold true in baseball, football, and hockey, whose combined salary payrolls top $10 billion. Every year, Forbes comes out with its list of the world’s highest paid athletes; the top 20 of the 2009 list earned $789 million dollars through a combination of endorsement deals and salaries. The most obvious example of an individual athlete’s monetary worth is Tiger Woods, who generated revenue through tour winnings, licensing agreements, and golf course design totaling $110 million. Professional coaches are also members of the economic elite, with the likes of Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson topping the list of salary earnings at $10.3 million.18


13

Professional teams and athletes bring in enormous revenues from ticket sales, product endorsements, and major television contracts. Major college sports (that is, football and basketball) are equally lucrative and visible. Texas was the overall top sports earner with $120.28 million generated from all athletic teams. Ohio State was second with $117.95 million, and Florida was third with $106.03 million.19 The battle over Olympic host sites and the lengths that people will go to in support of a certain city gaining the rights to both the Winter and especially the Summer Olympics is based on the amount of revenue that will be generated. It is the most watched global event, and the monies created top the billion dollar mark. Although there are concerns about the amount of money that will be spent by the potential host city’s tax payers, the level of interest and economic prosperity from hosting the Olympics has cities like Chicago rolling out the red carpet in order to have a chance to host the 2016 Games. Economic power in the United States has historically led to political power. The millions of dollars required to run for elected office reduces the number of viable candidates for the political elite. Therefore, it is necessary for elite athletes and coaches to be discussed in this arena of elites based on the jobs, revenue, and income created by their work, especially in the last four decades. Those who participate in elite athletics have earned the economic status of political elites of the past who came from big business, law, and other lucrative occupations, and therefore need to be included in the pool of viable political players in the American system. Yet it is not enough to focus solely on the economic impacts of sports on life. Sports occupy a role—some might argue the central role—in American culture. Sporting events dominate television schedules, sports news is an important element of local nightly newscasts and major newspapers, and sports talk shows abound on the radio spectrum. Sports metaphors proliferate in any discussion on politics, military undertakings, or any other aspect of life involving winning or losing. Candidates appeal to “NASCAR dads” and “soccer moms.” Turn on any news program or pick up any newspaper and you will notice a theme running through all major media coverage of political campaigns. Over the airwaves, you might hear pundits explain how one candidate has “taken the gloves off” or how the other landed a “knockout punch” in a debate. Therefore, we must look at the role the elite athlete has in the broader arena of cultural celebrity.

ATHLETES AS CELEBRITIES Individual athletes are celebrities of the highest rank, their images a constant fixture in mass media, and for good or ill, are seen as role models to members of all segments of society. Athletes and other celebrities are increasingly grist

14

Chapter 2

for a media culture that increasingly blurs lines between serious news, sports, and entertainment. Not surprisingly, individual athletes are today’s royalty. Perhaps they always seemed that way, but what sets them apart today is the sheer amount of money they earn and visibility they are able to gather during and after their careers. Sports fans and advertisers seek to identify with sports figures as heroes. Athletes in general, and star athletes in particular, are mythologized as examples of the solid American values of hard work, determination, and personal sacrifice. Sports celebrities today enjoy equal and perhaps more of the protection from negative imagery that others, like politicians, used to enjoy. C. Wright Mills, in his best known work, The Power Elite, talks of a segment of society that gains recognition and publicity no matter what the activity. A “Café Society,” in which celebrity is based on nothing of importance. “Rather than being celebrated because they occupy positions of prestige, they occupy positions of prestige because they are celebrated.”20 He goes on to describe actors, painters, writers, and socialites who have gained a place in the political elite based on who they are in another elite strata. They have access to those in positions of power, and some go on to gain those positions themselves based on the masses’ perception of their importance. According to Mills, these celebrities compete with the real political elites for the American public and, therefore, the political agenda. These celebrity elites may not be as easily dismissed as Mills might like them to be. Keller talks of these celebrity elites as strategic elites—“those whose judgments, decisions, and actions have important and determinable consequences for many members of society.”21 These elites specialize in something and are at the top of their profession. Because they are seen as authorities in their own realm, they affect the cultural, economic, and moral opinions of the masses. Also, Keller talks of these strategic elites as selfmotivated and thus are not tied to the class into which they were born. She emphasizes the role of hard work and physical labor as the beginning of their rise to prominence.22 More importantly for the purposes of this discussion, Keller also discusses celebrities as part of the symbolic elite.23 They are heroes who cannot let their public down. They tend to rise to power when there is a situation of unease or uncertainty—she uses Hollywood actors as a basis for this discussion. She goes on to state that “the celebrity elite has an enormous impact on not only on the wider public but also on decision makers in politics, business, and science who experience the popular culture through them.”24 Elite athletes, both professional and amateur, have risen to the height of celebrity in the United States and need to be discussed as major influences on the media, on product endorsements, and on the moral compass of American society.25


15

Since the 1960s, the research firm Marketing Evaluations has ranked celebrities based on the Q Score. From 1990 on, sports figures have been measured and rated on their popularity and familiarity. Approximately 500 sports personalities are listed and sent to 2,000 teens and adults who identify themselves as interested in sports. These numbers are then used by firms interested in advertising, sports broadcasting, and entertainment production, for example. These Q ratings translate into millions of dollars for the athlete and are tracked year to year to see if an athlete’s popularity can be maintained. In 2009, the top sports Q scores transcend race, sport, and age, with former NBA superstar Michael Jordan topping the list with a score of 50, followed by golfer Tiger Woods and former football coach and video game magnate John Madden.26 As a result, these three men can be considered the most popular athletes and coaches in the world; the money and media attention they receive directly connect with their scores. Kayle and Kayle27 discuss that it is not only popularity and familiarity that make athletes famous and that the Q score may be a bit limited in its analysis. Being a winner, trustworthiness, likeability, charm, power, and uniqueness, among other characteristics, make athletes stand out in the public eye. All of these factors add to the “celebrity” of the athlete. Like the movie stars described by Keller, elite athletes take on a new level of importance in society based on society’s perception of them. Advertisers use the public’s perception of the athlete being successful, invincible, and attractive, for example, and use the athlete in their commercials to “transfer meaning” from the individual athlete to the product.28 The ability to sell products does not end after the athletic career of the athlete does, as demonstrated by the endorsement power of Michael Jordan, Chris Evert, and Arnold Palmer to this day.29 Even when you are not participating in what made you famous anymore, you still have the same prestige and power that you once had. This is what it means to be a celebrity. O’Reilly and Braedley (2008) do an exhaustive job reviewing the literature of the “celebrity athlete endorser.”30 They argue that celebrity athletes not only command a great deal of money for their endorsements, they now want to be designers in the product they endorse. Clothing, golf clubs, sneakers, etc. are now created with the elite athlete in the room, not just on the packaging.31 Now more than ever, the celebrity is in control of his/her image and personal marketing. Bush, Martin, and Bush demonstrate that all markets are targeted by the elite athlete in the work on Generation Y and their behavioral intentions. They estimate that teenagers spend over $153 billion on purchases a year and determine that, “regardless of their public behavior, teenagers do consider athletes as important role models.”32 Therefore, elite athletes not only influence many dollars spent, they influence the person spending those dollars.

16

Chapter 2

“Athlete as role model” is an issue that has been debated since sports became professionally organized in the United States. Like politicians, the rise of society’s desire to see athletes as representatives of a moral compass is relatively recent. Often, the indiscretions of athletes were ignored or were laughed off. Now, athletes have to walk a very fine line between their personal and professional lives. The public may be more forgiving the more successful the athlete and/or the less polarizing the crime. Michael Phelps, 14-time Olympic Gold medal winner, saw his Q score go up after he was caught smoking marijuana.33 At the same time, NFL quarterback Michael Vick has become a societal pariah after being charged and serving jail time for felony animal cruelty charges. Although popular when playing, Vick did not nearly have the success that Phelps had, and his crime has struck up a national debate on animal protection laws. Phelps, however, was characterized as a teenager who made a mistake. The recent case of Pat Tillman, a professional football player who left a lucrative career in the National Football League to join the U.S. military and was eventually killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan, and the national outpouring of grief that came with his death, underscores the public fascination, even glorification, of the sports hero who dies young. This example was even more telling because of the nature of his death. Sports celebrities today enjoy equal and perhaps more of the protection from negative imagery that others, like politicians, used to enjoy. Through their discussion of Magic Johnson announcing he was HIVpositive and Mark McGwire and his Child Abuse Prevention Advocacy, Basil and Brown analyze how “a sports celebrity can be a very effective spoke person in advocating behavioral compliance.”34 Like celebrities before them, their announcements and advocacy affected the behavior of those who were influenced by them while they played sports. “The effectiveness of celebrities hinges on the breadth and depth of their appeal.”35 The authors found a change in the public’s perception of HIV testing and safe sex practices based on Magic Johnson’s public appeal. Therefore, using athletes in public service announcements or as spokespersons for major policy is an effective mechanism for change. Once again, as Keller indicates, athletes are societal elites who can affect an entire nation’s discourse. Elite athletes often represent races, classes, and other underrepresented groups from which celebrities have not been members before. However, this puts an unfortunate pressure on certain athletes who may just want to play the game and move on. In the edited volume Sports Stars: The Cultural Politics of Celebrity Athletes, athletes such as Tiger Woods, Dennis Rodman, Michael Jordan, Andre Agassi, and Venus Williams are analyzed through a post-modern


17

lens.36 These authors demonstrate that athletes and the public’s perception of those athletes have not solved the country’s problems concerning race relations, multiculturalism, masculinity, and sexual orientation. However, it does allow society to have discussions that may have been difficult in the past. It is interesting to note that most of the athletes in these discussions want nothing to do with the major discussions that their elite status is creating. Although it may not always be appealing to the athlete him or herself, the rise of athletic elites in America has changed the membership of the political elite. Elite athletic experiences tend to transcend some of the social boundaries of race and class, but can the same be said for gender?

WOMEN AND ELITE ATHLETICS Unlike their male athletic counterparts, elite female athletes have only recently become part of popular culture. As noted in their analysis of female athletes in the post-Title IX era, Heyword and Dworkin demonstrate that the 1990s ushered in a new level of interest in women’s sports.37 It is not only the traditional male bastions of sports that have enjoyed the increase in revenues and value. In December 2000, tennis star Venus Williams signed with Reebok for what was then the highest endorsement deal for a female athlete ever at $40 million over the next five years. Venus was later matched by her sister, Serena, who in 2004 signed a $40 million deal with Nike. Serena Williams was also ranked 19th on the Sports Illustrated list of the 101 Most Influential Minorities in Sports and the top ranked female athlete in the same list.38 The list of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) sponsors includes Oldsmobile, McDonald’s, General Foods, and Century 21. Adidas and Reebok outfit the WNBA, and even volleyball star Gabrielle Reece won endorsements from Nike and Coppertone. If male athletes have long reaped the benefits of these relationships, it was only in the 1990s that women began to enjoy them as well. Even here, however, only the select few women (e.g., Mia Hamm in soccer, Sheryl Swoopes in basketball, Venus and Serena Williams in tennis, and to some extent, Gabrielle Reece in volleyball) have seen their performances on the field carry over to dollar signs in the advertising world. The argument given for not using more female athletes for major endorsements is that their exposure on television, in newspapers, and in society in general is not sufficient to sell broad-based consumer products. Often it is how they look, rather than how they play, that gets female athletes the big money (see Anna Kournikova in tennis). The underexposure (as it were) of female athletes is changing, however. As the entertainment dollar is further fragmented—technology now makes

18

Chapter 2

hundreds of choices available to the average family—advertisers and the media need to attract both sexes in order to make the sports event or endorsement economically effective. An increasing number of women call themselves sports fans, and even bastions of male culture like professional football are looking to attract young women, mothers, and families to their games and to support their teams. Although most female athletes do not come close to earning the levels of income enjoyed by their male counterparts, legions of amateur athletes look to them as heroes and try to emulate their performance—even to the point of wearing the same sneakers or using the same tennis racket. Mia Hamm is a prime example of this type of star power. At every soccer game that is attended, whether she is playing in it or not, whether it is a men’s or women’s game, numerous fans are there wearing either her professional soccer jersey or the one she wore in the Olympics. In fact, she is the American face for Nike’s soccer marketing campaign. She is the only woman who represents her country in this endorsement opportunity. Since the U.S. women’s soccer team winning the Olympic gold medal in 2000, media coverage has also increased. However, it is limited in relationship to the coverage of men’s sports. As Michael Messner argues, it is not as simple as a supply and demand argument; as noted before, sports have been dominated by the same masculine traditions that have affected all arenas of society that have been male dominated.39 It is therefore important to encourage women in all aspects of sports and sports professions to succeed and report on the success of others. Women who play sports have already made major strides in the business world and become elites in their fields. Successful women are able to take the lessons that they learned playing team and individual sports and use them in other aspects of their lives. Therefore, it is important that we look at how elite athletic participation could be used in the political world.

Notes 1. Federal Campaign Web site for Jay Riemersma, Former Buffalo Bill and Pittsburgh Steeler. http://jayriemersma.com/ (10 June 2009). 2. See Washington, Robert E. and David Karen. “Sport and Society.” Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001): 187–212 for a discussion of the lack of research pertaining to the intersection of sports and “educational, political, and cultural institutions.” 3. Mosca, Gaetano. The Ruling Class (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935); Vilfredo Pareto. The Mind and Society (New York: Hardcort-Brace, 1935).


19

4. Keller, Suzanne. Beyond the Ruling Class (New York: Random House, 1963), 4. 5. Nadel, S.F. “The Concept of Social Elites.” International Social Science Bulletin 8, (1956): 414. 6. Michels, Robert. Political Parties (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1958). 7. Burnham, James. The Managerial Revolution (New York: Putnam, 1942). 8. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956). 9. Putnam, Robert. The Comparative Study of Political Elites (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976). 10. For an exemplary discussion of classic elite theory, see Parry, Geraint. Political Elites (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969). 11. Domhoff, G. William. Who Rules America?: Power, Politics, and Political Change, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006). 12. For the purposes of this study, elite athletes are those who have participated in athletics at the Division I collegiate, professional, or Olympic level. Elite coaches are those who have coached at the Division I or professional level. 13. Keller. Beyond the Ruling Class; Domhoff. Who Rules America?; Putnam. The Comparative Study of Political Elites. 14. Mills. The Power Elite, 296. 15. Burnham. The Managerial Revolution, 71. 16. DOL. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008–09. 17. McMillen. 2008. 18. 2009 Forbes List. World’s Highest Paid Athletes—2009. 19. Sports and Street, 2009. 20. Mills. The Power Elite, 74. 21. Mills. The Power Elite, 32. 22. Mills. The Power Elite, 37. 23. Keller. Beyond the Ruling Class, 9–10. 24. Keller. Beyond the Ruling Class, 13. 25. For an interesting discussion of the lack of research on sports celebrities and their role in all aspects of society, see Andrew and Jackson (2001), especially p. 5–6. 26. Marketing Evaluations, 2009. 27. Kayle and Kayle. 2006. 28. Stone, George, Matthew Joseph, and Michael Jones. “An Exploratory Study on the Use of Sports Celebrities in Advertising: A Content Analysis.” Sports Marketing Quarterly 12, no. 2 (2003): 94–102. 29. Stone, Joseph, and Jones. “An Exploratory Study,” 94. 30. O’Reilly, N. J., and L. A. Braedley. “Celebrity Athletes and Athletic Clothing Design: Branding Female Tennis Players,” Int. J. Sport Management and Marketing 3, Nos. 1, 2 (2008): 119–139. 31. O’Reilly and Braedley. “Celebrity Athletes,” 121–122. 32. Bush, Alan J., Craig A. Martin, and Victoria D. Bush. “Sports Celebrity Influence on the Behavioral Intentions of Generation Y.” Journal of Advertising Research, (March 2004): 113–114.

20

Chapter 2

33. Lefton, Terry. “Some of the Interest in the New Sports Q Scores Isn’t at the Top.” Sports Business Journal (June 28, 2009): 8. 34. Basil, Michael D., and William J. Brown. “Magic Johnson and Mark McGwire: The Power of Identification with Sports Celebrities.” In Sports Marketing and the Psychology of Marketing Communication, eds. Lynne R. Kahle and Chris Riley (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erllbaum Associates, Publishers, 2004): 167. 35. Basil and Brown. “Magic Johnson and Mark McGuire,” 169. 36. Andrews, David L., and Steven J. Jackson, eds. Sports Stars: The Cultural Politics of Sporting Celebrity (New York: Routledge, 2001). 37. Heywood, Lynn, and Sheri Dworkin. Built to Win: The Female Athlete As Cultural Icon (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003): 3. 38. “Same Game, New Players,” June 29, 2004. 39. Messner, Michael A. Out of Play: Critical Essays on Gender and Sport (Albany: SUNY Press, 2007): Introduction.

Chapter 3


BARRIERS TO FEMALE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP Women are underrepresented in the American political system, especially when it comes to elected office. This problem is one of descriptive representation—those who subscribe to this theory feel that the legislature of a country should look like the population of the country. A true democracy can only exist when all of the members of society are represented. However, as discussed by Rosenthal in her discussion of gender and descriptive representation, “. . . without more female candidates, women cannot demonstrate a preference for descriptive representation.”1 Before the question of descriptive representation can be addressed, one must first look at the reasons why women do not run for office in the first place. The lack of female political leadership in the United States can be attributed to many factors that have been documented since women were enfranchised nationally in 1920, decades after Wyoming became the first state in the Union to allow women to vote. The first questions often posed are what is the proper role of women in public life and what level of contribution do they make? Thomas argues that more women entering the political arena would create a kinder, gentler political sphere and thus change the nature of politics as a whole.2 Whether such a change is good is a different argument, of course. Bennett and Bennett (see Duke, 2008) continue this argument of women’s preconceived role in society. They discuss the sex-role socialization, the structural factors, and the situational factors that “. . . encourage political 21

22

Chapter 3

passivity among women.”3 These factors include occupation, income, education, and the traditional role of the woman as the homemaker—all indicators of decreased formal involvement in political activity. However, both argue that these factors have changed in relevance in that the majority of women work outside the home, have greater educational and occupational opportunities, and higher relative incomes.4 By contrast, the authors represented in Thomas and Wilcox5 cumulatively point to still structural factors as obstacles that hinder women from achieving public office and leadership positions. To begin with, institutional factors discourage both women and other underrepresented segments of society from seeking office.6 The single-member district, combined with “first past the post” plurality rules that select most members of Congress limit the range and number of people who can consider themselves viable candidates for office. The ability to place a number of women on a party list by the party itself (in the form of a percentage or exact number) would increase the number of female candidates for office. A lack of female candidates in the United States is a major reason as to why there is not a great deal of female representation in the legislature. Scholars such as Norris argue that a proportional representation system with either a party list rule as in Great Britain or an established series of quotas as is carried out in France would both encourage more women to run and lower barriers to their ultimate success. For example, in the most recent German federal election, 30% of the seats in the Bundestag were occupied by women, and most via the party list. The absence of term limits in the majority of federally held elected positions in the United States also falls under this electoral structure argument. Terms limits might reduce the benefits that come with being a long-term incumbent in the federal system, or at least would make the seat open up more frequently.7 Since there are relatively few women that serve at the federal level, many of them do not have the advantages that come with serving in office. Of course, with term limits, even female office holders lose their seats. However, term limits might assist female candidates because of the increased number of open seats they would produce at the federal level. There has already been some experience of this at the state level, with mixed results. The very term-limit rules that are used as an argument to support the concept of more women achieving office cost the governor of Arizona her job last fall after serving her state-limited two terms. The electoral system in the United States does not seem as though it is going to be changed any time soon, so any resolution of the problem of low


23

female leadership will not be obtained through an overhaul of the nation’s basic electoral rules. Proportional representation is seen as “too alien,” while term limits speak against the idea of a representative democracy that is truly supported by the people. Terms limits are popular in theory, and in reality, in states when individuals are able to get them passed through voter-led initiatives, but they are not so popular when passed through congressional action. For those officials who are career politicians, the idea of having to leave one’s job after a fixed amount of terms in not easy to swallow. More important for this discussion, as shown by Susan Carroll (2001), “contrary to the expectation of term-limit advocates and many scholars, the number of women serving in term-limited statehouse seats actually decreased following the 1998 and 2000 elections.”8 There is no gender bias when it comes to term limits—if you have served the maximum amount of terms that you can, being a woman will not prevent you from having to leave the office. Also, term limits do not increase the amount of women who run for office. Even so, proponents claim that limits, by creating more open seats, will in turn provide more opportunities for women. For their part, the two dominant political parties in the United States are identified as deterrents to women becoming successful candidates for office, even though both make major efforts to recruit women as candidates for Congress. Richard Logan Fox, in his study of California State House races, found that women often reported a sense of bias against them by the state and national parties. There was a feeling by their campaign managers that the party institutions were somehow ignoring them. Although Fox found no overt party bias, the perception of bias was statistically significant and therefore was a deterrent for some female candidates.9 However, party politics in the United States is not the same as it used to be. The rise of the independent voter, candidate-centered campaigns, and the influence of television contributed to a relative decline in the influence of parties in elections. It should be noted, however, that parties as national organizations still are the most important players in candidate recruitment, training, and support. This affects both male and female candidates in their quest to achieve positions of power. Although it seems that men and women would be on equal footing in the electoral arena because of the decline of party power in the United States, women still lag behind men in their ability to raise funds to run for office.10 There is also the argument that party organization in other systems is the key factor in elevating women to higher

24

Chapter 3

office (as mentioned previously), but the absence of strong party organization in the United States undercuts their efforts to act as agents of female advancement. In the U.S. context, money plays a very direct role in electoral success, and the capacity to raise money powerfully affects election outcomes. In this regard, most women still appear to be at a severe disadvantage, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole notwithstanding. Even with the rise of women political action committees (PACs) like EMILY’s List, individual and corporate donations typically go to the male candidate running against the female candidate.11 And although more women are contributing money to candidates of either gender, the effects of this new campaign money on female candidates’ success rate have not been overtly positive. Media coverage of candidates also tends to work against women who run for office. Diane Bystrom’s 2001 study of Elizabeth Dole’s run for president found that the candidate received less media coverage than her primary male counterparts in Iowa (George W. Bush and Steve Forbes) and that when she was covered by the media, it was more to describe how she looked or talked, rather than for the issues that she stood for. The perception was that she did not have a chance of winning the race. Witt, Paget, and Matthews talk of many examples of women being taken out of context, having their clothes and hairstyles scrutinized, and having to deal with unflattering pictures of themselves in major newspapers.12 Former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Evelyn Murphy, for example, was treated poorly when a picture of her riding a bicycle taken from behind led to the otherwise svelte candidate being described as “rotund” by a local Boston newspaper. For female candidates, physical image seems to become essential, and probably more so than for men. Not only does it discourage certain women from running, it also creates a perception of female candidates as less qualified. The media seems to be so concerned with how a female candidate looks, how she talks, etc., that the issues never make it to the discussion of the candidate. You have to be feminine, but not too feminine. You have to be tough, but not bitchy. It is a very tough scale to balance. Such media interpretations of female candidates compound a broader female perception of non-viability: women have been socialized to feel that are not qualified to run for office and therefore do not choose to do so. Each of these factors plays a role in the broader issue of female success in seeking electoral office, yet they do not fully explain the reasons behind


25

low female candidate turnout and success, especially in cases of perceived viability. That is why it is imperative to look at the social eligibility pool and its effects on female political participation.

GENDER AND THE SOCIAL ELIGIBILITY POOL Parry, in his introduction, determines that political scientists are interested in looking at the unifying characteristics of “those persons who attain the leading positions in a range of activities that have a major bearing of society.”13 One of those factors is career path and choices that are made by those seeking political power. What makes a candidate qualified for office? Who do voters see as the most able to represent them? And the larger question, does gender in and of itself have anything to do with these qualifications? Political scientists over the past thirty years have been trying to create a list of characteristics that most victorious candidates for office seem to share. Scholars have come to the conclusion that indeed there are various distinct factors that define those who achieve office in the United States. Those factors include occupation, social class, political experience, educational background, and income. Together known as the social eligibility pool, the majority of candidates who have electoral success have these defining characteristics. So, one could argue that the more women fill this “political pipeline,” the higher number of women would serve in political office. Unfortunately for those who are concerned with women having more access and success in achieving public office, women typically lag behind not in these eligibility characteristics, but the correlation of these characteristics to achieving public office. Although there have been advances for women in the previous list of factors, these social, economic, and occupational successes have not led to an increase in running for and/or winning public office. The purpose of this study is not to discuss why.14 It is to outline the eligibility factors and examine whether there are others that could be added to the list. What makes an individual seem eligible for electoral office? The main scholars in the area of gender and political eligibility agree that level of education stands out as a primary indicator. The higher one goes up the educational ladder, the more likely that people will perceive you as qualified to run for office. Because of the disparity in the proportion of women who received

26

Chapter 3

advanced degrees prior to the 1970s, says Diamond, fewer women ran for office.15 Yet, as Burrell points out, women are achieving advanced degrees in record numbers. She contends that higher education by itself is not the primary difference, but the type of advanced degree that women traditionally earned has changed. With the number of women making up over 50% of the first-year law school class today, the implied logic would be that there should be more women seeking and serving in office.16 Women, it seems, are not using their law degrees for seeking public office. Most women who earn law degrees go into the practice of law or more often than not, the type of law that they study does not lend itself to a political career. Often times, it is child and family law, domestic abuse law, or public service law that women specialize in. These areas of specialization do not give them much time or interest in a political career; therefore the stepping stone that is created for men in the law school environment is not the same for women. As Darcy observes “it is safe to say that women’s occupations and activities have not provided the same sort of gateway to political office as prestigious male occupations.”17 This leads directly into a discussion of candidate’s occupation and how it qualifies him/her for seeking public office. For male candidates, the job they had in their private lives likely dealt with law or business, whereas most female office holders at the federal level have an educational background.18 Yet, in looking at the 13 women who now hold senatorial seats, occupational background varies from law, to education, to business, to non-profit organization, the likelihood of finding an occupational pattern to fit all women who achieve federal office is slim.19 Fox and Lawless (2005) demonstrate that although more women are pursuing careers that tend to be “viable” paths to political leadership, the numbers of elite positions in those careers held by women tend to still be small.20 In other words, the pipeline itself has a glass ceiling. A candidate’s level of education and type of occupation are often perceived by voters as an indicator of candidate viability. Male candidates and office holders are more likely to fit these viability characteristics, where women, no matter what strides they make occupationally, are less likely to seek public office. One reason for that is public perception of gender in the United States. Duerst-Lahti, in her discussion of gender and leadership, indicates that “(d)eeply embedded patterns of traditional gender socialization pervade U.S. society and continue to make politics a much less likely path for women than men.”21


27

The traits that define a “good” political leader in the United States can be traced to a discussion of what it means to be a leader in any realm. There are certain qualifications that must be met in order for the person to be deemed a viable candidate for the job. For the social eligibility pool, previous political experience and political efficacy are two factors that shape the perceived viability of candidates. The majority of members of Congress, both men and women, have at one time or another served in public office at the state or local level. Political efficacy can also be seen as a deterrent for women winning office. A potential candidate’s self-perceived efficacy is often much lower for women. What women perceive as their knowledge of politics stems back from the discussion of the public and private sphere in the beginning of this chapter. Bennett and Bennett argue that women feel that they possess limited knowledge about politics and thus feel less qualified to run for office.22 Lawless and Fox expand this discussion to include women’s desire to run for office and how this can be affected by self-perception.23 Marital status, age, and family size of candidates for office are also factors in shaping the eligibility pool, especially for women. Women who first enter the electoral sphere tend to be older than their male counterparts and have fewer and older children than male candidates do. It is only after the children are raised and a career has been established that women can think about running for office. This attitude of what women’s work is based on voter perception of women and family. Female candidates and office holders are often critiqued for trying to do too much (see Jane Swift and her time as acting governor of Massachusetts24) and are declared unfit to carry out the job. Women are often seen as “shirking” their responsibility to their families by seeking and holding office, especially to their children. Women who want to seek public office typically wait until their children are older so that there will be no public criticism that they are trying to do too much in raising children and having a career at the same time. In Swift’s case, of course, not only did she have young children, she had a husband who had been previously married three times, which added to her poor public image. What do these social eligibility factors get someone other than the perception of being a viable candidate? They grant prestige in an elite-based society. If one goes to the right school and gets the right job, he/she will get to know a group of people in society that will help them achieve office. If one is encouraged to increase knowledge of the political process, then he/she is more likely to see that he/she can bring about substantial policy change if they go into public service. If they are not responsible for childcare or main-

28

Chapter 3

taining a home as well as a job, then they are more likely to have the time to pursue outside interests, including politics. Unfortunately, women have not always been in the position to gain these important factors that many deem to be the necessary qualifications for running for office. If they do not have these characteristics, they do not seek public office as readily as their male counterparts.

ATHLETICS AS CRITERIA OF THE SOCIAL ELIGIBILITY POOL What if elite athletic participation was added to the list of social eligibility factors? Women do not run for political office as readily as men; however if they do run, they are as successful in achieving the position. This is due to many factors, one of which concerns the established elites in society that exist in the United States. Athletics are an important part of society, so important that they play dramatic roles in the economic, social, and recently, political aspects of life. These athletes, in turn, have become elites in society and have achieved staggering levels of influence. The rise of athlete-politicians can be seen at both the state and national level and the skills learned as an athlete are being used more and more as campaign points (leadership, teamwork, motivation, etc.). Women who participate in sports find themselves in a position where they can make the connections that are sometimes limited to them because of the professions they choose or the families they have to raise. Sports can help candidates portray a balance between the feminine and masculine characteristics that are demanded of them because of their gender. They can show they are strong but not too strong. Athletic participation, then, is an important part of the social eligibility pool, especially for female candidates. I would argue that professional athletics can be considered to be a new high-level occupation due to its prominence in the media, the amount of money that it makes, and celebrity status placed on elite athletes in the United States. I would also argue that athletic participation at the elite amateur level is also an important factor of social eligibility. As mentioned before, being involved in sports allows the candidate to describe qualities of teamwork, leadership, toughness, determination, etc., which are all positive characteristics of a political leader. Also, elites are elites no matter what they do. If women are not given equal opportunities in athletics, they then will not have equal access to the political social eligibility pool and in turn, unequal access to elite status in society.


29

What makes the social eligibility pool worthy of study is the room for fluidity in the characteristics contained herein. That is, the traits that make up the pool are not fixed, but can change over time as public perceptions themselves evolve. This is also true of elites in society, as well. Carroll and Gertzog discuss how the stereotypical political elites do not succeed at the rate they had in the past. 25 This is in direct congruence with the literature on political elite evolution discussed previously. If there is one arena where women have changed society’s perception of their role in that arena, it is sports. It is not the exception that a daughter would consider playing soccer; it is now the rule. Girls and women are less embarrassed about the aggressiveness that they show on the field or court and are just as likely as men to watch sports on television. With that in mind, I argue that athletic participation could be that characteristic that women could use to level the playing field of the social eligibility pool. It is important to analyze the area in which women have made the greatest strides over the last three decades in relation to another area in which they have lagged woefully behind, that being elected office. As women continue to expand their role in sports, the role in society becomes expanded as well. Women are being marketed to by professional and amateur sports in ways that could not have been dreamed about 30 years ago. The national and international exposure of athletes like Mia Hamm and Lisa Leslie has made sports accessible to groups of young girls that may have never felt that sports was something in which they could participate. Title IX continues to open many doors for women, some more obvious than others. By adding athletic experience to the characteristics of the social eligibility pool, this puts more pressure on Title IX to maintain its charge for proportional equity in high school and college sports for girls and boys, men and women.

Notes 1. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. “The Role of Gender in Descriptive Representation.” Political Research Quarterly 48, no. 3 (1995): 600. 2. Thomas, Sue. How Women Legislate (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 3. Bennett and Bennett, 2008, 47. 4. Bennett and Bennett, 2008, 48.

30

Chapter 3

5. Thomas, Sue and Clyde Wilcox. “Introduction: Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, & Future, eds. Thomas, Sue and Clyde Wilcox (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998): 4–5. 6. Darcy, R. and James R. Choike. “A Formal Analysis of Legislative Turnover: Women Candidates and Legislative Representation.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 30, No.1 (Feb. 1986), 237–255. 7. Thomas and Wilcox. 5. 8. Carroll, Susan. “Representing Women: Women State Legislators as Agents of Policy-Related Change,” in The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Susan Carroll (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001): 19. 9. Fox, Richard L. Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, 1997): Introduction. 10. Fox. Gender Dynamics, 20. 11. The Center for Women and Politics identifies 46 PACs and donor networks that primarily give money to female candidates across the United States. EMILY’s List (Early Money Is Like YEAST) is the most well known nationally; this PAC gives money to Democratic, female, pro-choice candidates for Congress, with donations totaling $9.3 million in 2000. However, the money raised has not directly contributed to any true increased success for female candidates. 12. Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. Running As a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics (New York: The Free Press, 1994): 33. 13. Parry. Political Elites, xi. 14. For discussions on political ambition, see Lawless, Jennifer and Richard L. Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Burrell. 1994; Lawless, Jennifer. “Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for Women in Politics.” Politics and Gender 5, no.1 (2008): 70–80. 15. Diamond, Irene. Sex Roles in the State House (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977). 16. Burrell, A Woman’s Place, 17. 17. Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. Women, Elections, and Representation, 2nd ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994): 112. 18. Burrell, A Woman’s Place, 77–78. 19. Dolan, Julie, Melissa Deckman, and Michele L. Swers. Women and Politics: Paths to Power and Political Influence (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007). 20. Fox, Richard and Jennifer Lawless. “To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3 2005, 26–28. 21. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. “The Bottleneck: Women Becoming Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, & Future, eds. Thomas, Sue and Clyde Wilcox (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998): 156. 22. Bennett and Bennett, 2008, 147.


31

23. Lawless and Fox. It Takes a Candidate, 2005. 24. The Lieutenant Governor stepped into the governorship of Massachusetts when then Governor Paul Cellucci was named ambassador to Canada by the Bush Administration. Her short tenure was met with controversies ranging from using aides as baby sitters to using a State helicopter to go from the Governor’s office to Western Massachusetts. The major debate came when Swift became the first governor to give birth to twins while in office. 25. Carroll. Women as Candidates, 1994; Gertzog, Irwin. “Women’s Changing Pathways to the US House of Representatives: Widows, Elites, and Strategic Politicians.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002).

Chapter 4


“I think you learn things in athletics that apply in any arena that you’re in—in business, in politics, in the ministry, in marriage and family . . . paying the price, delayed gratification, commitment, hard work, those basic tools that I think you have to be successful in anything were obviously developed in my life early on as an athlete in an athletic arena.” —J. C. Watts (R), former member, House of Representatives1

If athletes have reached the level of elites in American society, we should see their influence in the political arena. With that in mind, it is first necessary to show the frequency with which candidates for elected office use their athletic experience in their campaign materials, in this case, the candidate’s online campaign materials. The analysis of campaigning on the Internet has gained a great deal of interest since 2000, and therefore, we have seen an increased of scholarly research on the subject.2 To that end, the Web site candidates of congressional candidates were gathered by the Library of Congress Web Archive Minerva Project.3 Roughly 2,000 Web sites were collected, and of those, over 1,000 candidates in the 2002 and 2004 congressional elections had a biography section in their Web site. The candidates’ biographies were then coded for the traditional social eligibility pool characteristics as well as gender, party, and military experience (see Appendix A). Each of these biographies were then examined to determine if the candidate had one or more of the following athletic attributes: amateur athletic experience, professional athletic experience, a family member with athletic experience, amateur coaching experience, and professional coaching experience. 33

34

Chapter 4

ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION The first finding of the collected data is the number of times the five athletic factors (amateur sports participation, professional sports participation, amateur coaching, professional coaching, and family member athletic participation) are mentioned by the candidates in their biographies. Nearly one in four of the congressional candidates examined here indicated some type of participation in athletics, with the greatest frequency being amateur athletic experience. This athletic experience ranged from being in a bowling league (!) to being the starting running back for one’s college football team. Demographic Breakdown Amateur athletic experience is cited most frequently by the candidates, so it is necessary to compare the demographic and statistical significance of the candidates’ participation. The following table shows regional, racial, and party participation in amateur athletics. Candidates from the Midwest have the highest number of athlete-candidates with 45; however, the regions with the greatest percentage of amateur athlete-candidates are the South and Southwest. Both of these regions are known for their large high school and college sports programs and the major influence these programs play in local culture.4 The race of the candidate and his/her participation in amateur athletics was similar across the board, with no group having a larger percentage of participants than another. This is not the case in all professional and amateur athletics. The National Basketball Association is made up over 70% African Americans, and Major League Baseball is made up of a non-white majority. However, the NCAA reports that 71.6% of male athletes and 76.1% of female athletes are white.5 This also holds true for the data in this study, where the majority of candidates who reported race and/or ethnicity were white (87.6%). Similarly, candidate party identification in relation to his or her amateur athletic experience is relatively the same, with neither the Republican nor Democratic parties laying down a stronger foundation in the athletic world. Roughly Table 4.1. Candidate Indicating Participation in Athletics—2002–2004 Amateur Athletics

Professional Athletics

Amateur Athletic Coaching

Professional Athletic Coaching

Family Member Athletic Experience

162/15%

12/1%

54/5%

1/.1%

47/4.5%

N = 1061 candidate biographies


35

Table 4.2a. Amateur Athletic Experience by Region northeast 14

mid-Atlantic 18

southeast 18

mid west 49

south 18

west 27

southwest 15

Total

159

Table 4.2b. Amateur Athletic Experience by Race (self-identified) white 141

African American 9

Latino 5

Asian American 1

other 2

Total 158

Table 4.2c. Amateur Athletes Political party Democrat 88

Republican 74

Total

162

N = 1061

8.0% of Republican candidates indicated past sports performances, whereas the Democratic candidates identified as amateur athletes 6.2% of the time. Military Experience A second finding from the data follows a pattern that has been true for both members of Congress and candidates beginning in the 1990s. As the analysis of the campaign biographies shows, it was more likely that a candidate mentions previous athletic experience than previous military experience. Bianco and Markam (1997) indicate a drop in the number of veterans serving in both houses of Congress based on changes in the socioeconomic make up of the population as well as a sense of disillusionment with the government. This drop can also be attributed to changes in the scope and nature of the draft during the Vietnam War, which gave generous deferments to college-going youth while making sure that workingclass children went off to war, not to mention that the sheer size of the WWII cohort meant that most men of a certain age had at least served in some capacity. This pattern of decline in military experience held true in the data gathered for this study. In fact, there are fewer candidates who indicate military experience in their formal biographies than describe their previous or current athletic experiences. This nation has had a volunteer military since

36

Chapter 4

the 1970s and until the 1990–91 Gulf War had engaged in relatively little major combat action. These indicators, along with the factors listed previously, have affected the number of candidates who describe past military experience. It is telling to note that the descriptors typically used to describe military experience—leadership, teamwork, strength, courage—are also used to describe athletic experience or achievements. Moreover, the same techniques candidates once typically used to exhibit their military records also show up in portrayals of athletic participation including photographs, newspaper clippings, and testimonials from colleagues. At least until the Iraq War, for many candidates and voters, athletics might very well be a substitute for military service. Significance of Athletic Experience What is interesting to discover is that amateur athletic experience, amateur coaching experience, and family sports participation are all statistically significant in the success of the congressional candidate based on this study’s data set. Table 4.3 shows that the amateur athletic experience is a relevant factor in a candidate’s success. Therefore, it can be argued that athletic expeTable 4.3a. Significant Athletic Experience success Amateur Athletic Experience

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

.143**

.000 1058

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 4.3b. Significant Athletic Experience success Amateur Coaching Experience


.082**

.004 1057

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Table 4.3c. Significant Athletic Experience success Family Athletic Experience


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

.055*

.036 1056


37

rience can be placed in the social eligibility pool of factors that determine who would be best qualified to run for office, as political experience and incumbency already find. The other two athletic variables, professional athletic experience and professional coaching experience, do not have a statistically significant effect on election results. One reason behind this may be the relatively low numbers of professional athletes in the United States. The NCAA estimated that the number of student athletes at the collegiate level going on to play professional sports was roughly 1 percent, and that is only players that are drafted; it doesn’t necessarily mean they will make a professional roster. The number of students who go from the high school level of athletics to college is about 11%, which would indicate a far greater number of amateur athletes in society who could go on to run for office.6 Amateur athletic experience, whether is be through playing or coaching, in a candidate’s biography is a statistically significant factor in the 2002 and 2004 Congressional elections. Participating in sports proved to be factor for successful candidates. We may soon see a time when young people who want to go into politics will make sure that they achieve a position on their high school sports team. They will be most conscious of having their picture taken in an athletic pose that could be used in the future. From the previous data, it is not a far-fetched statement to say that amateur athletic experience can be included in the factors of the social eligibility pool of political success. But a more interesting question may be why are they elected? What about athletic experiences will be used to win over the voter? The biographies themselves and interviews with four prominent athlete politicians shed some light on this discussion.

PERSONAL CONNECTION WITH VOTERS: JUST ONE OF THE GUYS Pictures of the candidate in a sport uniform along with a description of his or her performance on the playing field were included in some biographies as a way to connect with the state or district they were hoping to represent. Republican House candidate Don Smart of Georgia includes a picture of himself on the West Georgia College football team with the caption “Georgian” across the bottom.7 He clearly defines the connection between his home state and his athletic experience there. Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) was an all-star football player in Wisconsin and went on to play quarterback in the 1980s at Harvard University before a knee

38

Chapter 4

injury cut his playing career short. He went on to study at the London School of Economics, got a law degree along the way, and came back to his home state, where he successfully ran for public office. His sports performances in high school and college helped him re-connect with the citizens after about 10 years away. “People would watch me grow up and excel in certain areas like athletics. They remember that, and some of the old stories and I think it helps in the fact that it’s kind of a value judgment, ‘he is one of us.’ You know he loves sports, I love sports. He grew up here, I grew up here. That helps in politics. More than anything, it’s not really the issues and that it’s whether you can connect to people on a personal level, that they are comfortable that you are one of them, that you kind of share the same type of outlook on life, the same value system. And of course in Western Wisconsin as a lot of places, their sports crazy individuals with Packers, Brewers, Bucks sports and then the, especially the local high school teams, huge followings.”8

But, it does not always look good when the local boy runs off to the fancy Ivy League school in the Northeast and does not attend the state school football powerhouse. Rep. Kind was conscious of that while running for office and at times it was an advantage: “It does cut both ways, you get the reverse snobbery. Some might describe it that ‘oh he is Ivy league, he’s elite. He doesn’t really know, he doesn’t relate to us.’ And then others will see it as ‘Good for him, He worked hard and did well in school and he was able to go to a good school and then he came back home again.”9

Scott Conwell, a Republican running for the House from Maryland, includes three pictures of himself playing football in both high school and college with the caption “going the extra yard” under one of the pictures and a declaration of being awarded the Athletic Unsung Hero Award at Johns Hopkins University.10 Of course, Johns Hopkins is not the first or even the last school one thinks of when attempting to list college football powerhouses. However, it is possible that Conwell was trying to defuse the “elite” school mantle a bit by showing that he is just a “normal” guy playing a manly sport, like President George W. Bush going to NASCAR races or Senator John F. Kerry going goose hunting during the 2004 presidential election. J. C. Watts was a three-sport star at his high school in Eufaula, Oklahoma, before going on to play quarterback for the University of Oklahoma and professionally in Canada until he too came home to Oklahoma to run for public


39

office. Unfortunately for him, his connection to football was not necessarily what the voters wanted to see at the time. “In 1989, there was a period of about 45 days, the University of Oklahoma, we had three football players, Oklahoma university football players who were involved in a raping incident that was nationally known, we had one player that shot another player and we had our starting quarterback that ended up on the cover of Sports Illustrated in handcuffs due to a drug bust and so, here I was, as a former University of Oklahoma football player saying “I want to be your state commissioner.”11

Therefore, although the sports experiences were important to some voters, Rep. Watts was very cautious of how he would use his experiences during his campaigns. “If you go back and look at my literature, my data back in my first race in 1990, I didn’t talk about being a former football player or being the quarterback at University of Oklahoma, I never initiated that discussion—that said, if someone wanted to talk to me about it, I wouldn’t run from the discussion but I surely didn’t lead with that and I never brought it up or made it an issue. Now in the state of Oklahoma where you don’t have a national football league team, at that time you didn’t have any professional franchise, major league franchise in the state, so college football, high school football carries a lot of weight. (B)ut, I didn’t want people to think I was saying vote for me because I played QB at UO.”12

In other words, a balance has to be struck by the athlete candidate—try to make a connection with the voter through your sports experiences, however maintain the fact that sports does not necessarily make you qualified to run for public office. In an era of candidate-centered politics, when personal connections matter to voters, sports can be a way to overcome gaps in education and class that other characteristics of the social eligibility pool cannot.

INTANGIBLES: LEADERSHIP AND BALANCE, MATURITY AND HARD WORK Athletic experience is also mentioned in candidates’ biographies to show their success in balancing school and other activities. Rep. Kind discusses in the second paragraph of his bio that he “. . . was a standout student-ath-

40

Chapter 4

lete in football and basketball.”13 Democratic candidate Stephanie Herseth (SD) described her high school experience where she “. . . captained the track and basketball teams.”14 Athletic experience is used to show how candidates put themselves through school, as John Cox (GA, 13th) discusses in his biography: “His athletic-academic prowess earned him a full scholarship to Western Carolina University where he played football for the Catamounts.”15 Athletic experience in high school and college can imply that candidates learned both teamwork and leadership skills, both seen as essential to attractive candidates. The visual of a candidate playing a sport portrays images of strength and “belonging” to a group, which are important qualifications for a candidate. These images and experiences can even show patriotism, as Dutch Ruppersberger (MD) did when describing his experience playing on the World Champion U.S. international lacrosse team.16 “I think you learn a lot about sacrifice and delayed gratification and you understand or have a pretty good understanding of what paying the price is. So I think paying the price, delayed gratification, commitment, hard work, those basic tools that I think you have to be successful in anything were obviously developed in my life early on as an athlete in an athletic arena.” —J. C. Watts17

Oftentimes, voters determine that candidates are viable to serve in public office based on characteristics that they would like to see their leaders have. Many of those same characteristics can be found in athletes. It is not surprising then that former athletes make successful candidates.

Community Participation Coaching sports at the amateur level helps candidates show that they are part of the communities they are hoping to represent. Candidates often list coaching youth sports in the same paragraph in which they describe the organizations and churches to which they belong. Rob Beckham, Republican candidate (TX, 17th), talks of his involvement in the district by stating “[he] teaches Sunday School at the Episcopal Church . . . he also plays on a softball team and coaches his son’s little league team.”18 Coaching can show that a candidate thinks that spending quality time with children is important. Chris Van Hollen, Democratic House candidate from Maryland, states that he “is proud of the fact that he managed to coach MSI soccer (entering his seventh season in Fall 2001), and hone his five year old’s baseball skills.”19


41

Republican Senator Mike Enzi (WI) states “Beyond Enzi’s involvement in his children’s education, he has followed their extracurricular activities, including being a youth soccer coach.”20 Like belong to the Elks or a local church, community involvement through coaching youth sports connects the candidate to the voter.

Name Recognition Like any other group of elites, athletes benefit from the name recognition that excellence in their sports provides for them. Although they might downplay it, elite athletes benefit from the media coverage and notoriety that comes with being a major athlete. For example, C. Thomas (Tom) McMillen was a basketball star from grade school, through the Olympics, to the National Basketball Association. In a unique display of using athletics to springboard a political career, McMillen campaigned for the House of Representatives while playing in his last season in the NBA. The name recognition he received through basketball carried over to a three-term tenure in the House. “I think it gave me notability coming into office. . . . it helps to have that notability, to have people know who you are. But ultimately you are judged as a legislator just like anybody else. If you are a good legislator, you illicit that respect and if you aren’t, you don’t. It’s no different than being a basketball player. Ultimately, it’s what you do on the court that counts.” —Tom McMillen21

J. C. Watts recounted in a discussion of his political beginnings how name recognition changes over time, but still helps you be successful. He went from using his name to get in the door to using it to stay in office as an incumbent. “We ask[ed] the question “what do you think of when you hear the name J. C. Watts?” my first poll the responses were: MVP in the Orange Bowl, quarterback of University of Oklahoma, leader on and off field . . . it was all associated with football, plus a little bit of my youth work. Then four or five years down the road after I had been in public office and was looking at another office and wanted to take another snapshot and ask that same open ended question, people were saying: chairman of Oklahoma corporation commission and public service. It was more toward politics and public service and elected office than it was football.”22

42

Chapter 4

As long as it is positive, name recognition is a valuable tool for political athletes to start and maintain their careers. Family Values Coaching and playing sports can also demonstrate characteristics that a candidate wishes to signal to constituents, even if the experience is not his or hers alone. Tim Johnson, Democratic candidate for the Senate from South Dakota, discusses what he learned from his father’s coaching experience: “His father Van was a high school teacher and football coach . . . Tim learned early on the need for hard work from the values and ideals that his father instilled in him . . . During his senior year . . . Tim played football and was named most valuable player. He played linebacker, was captain of defense, and scored fourteen touchdowns that year.”23

The most interesting ways that sports experiences are used in candidates’ biographies are through the experiences of others. Some are as simple as mentioning their child’s activities; Jay Inslee (R, WA) describes his son Joe as “. . . age 16, a high school soccer and lacrosse player.”24 Others indicate the success of their family members. “His [David Scott] extended family includes his close friend and brother-in-law, ‘Hammerin’ Hank Aaron.”25 Name recognition, which is important to candidates’ success, obviously is not limited to their own name. The elite status of professional athletes in the United States can be used to enhance the candidacy of their not so well known brother-in-law, if the environment is correct. Communication Skills and Bi-Partisanship Once a member of Congress, elite athletic experience helps the participant be an effective legislator through communication skills and bi-partisanship. Coaching especially seems to help in these two areas, according to former Rep. Tom Osborne. His personal campaign biography discusses how sports helped him prepare for a job in the political arena: “Congress is not Rep. Osborne’s first competitive arena. He retired as Head Coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers in 1997 after the longest tenure for a Nebraska coach—36 years, with 25 as head coach. Under his leadership, the Huskers played in a bowl games every year, averaged over 10 wins per season, and never won less thank 9 games in a season. Prior to returning to Nebraska as an assistant coach to Bob Devaney, Rep. Osborne played professional football for the Washington Redskins and San Francisco.”26


43

When discussing life in politics after life in the Big Ten, Rep. Osborne talked about the communication skills he learned through coaching. “As a coach I think it’s important to be a good communicator. You have to make sure that your players know what it is that you believe, what it is that you want. You have to be willing to work long hours. You have to have a fairly thick skin and be able to withstand criticism.”27

The idea of being tough also rang true for Rep. Watts, as he talked about the changing public opinion that existed in football and politics. “I think in politics it did help me to have been booed and to have gone through the trials of being a quarterback and understanding that you can go from hero to goat in a matter of one play.”28

The ability to take criticism and overcome “adversity” clearly helps the athlete legislator. However, the most universal skill transferred from the playing field to the halls of congress has to be bi-partisanship and working together with others. In politics, the “teams” are less defined but the competition is clear. Sports, in many ways, defines what it means to be on opposite competing teams; in politics it doesn’t seem to matter so much what “team” you are on but what you “competing” or fighting for—this is how Republicans work with Democrats. The athlete legislators interviewed indicated their dislike of the partisan nature of politics and how sport experiences could be used as buffers. “The partisanship was something I was not interested in. I found I could generally get along pretty well with opposing coaches and I never really believed, even though you want to compete hard and be effective, that you needed to do it in a way that was nasty. I don’t believe any of the campaigning I did was ever denigrating of an opponent. We never ran any negative attack ads, never spread rumors, those kinds of things. And of course in coaching we always believed in recruiting. We wouldn’t talk about other schools; we only talked about our school. We never bad mouthed anybody. So there’s a little carry over there. I did get along with people on both sides of aisle. I don’t think I was seen as a partisan person.” —Rep. Tom Osborne29 “I do and I have always believed that congress functions best when it works in a bi-partisan fashion. And I didn’t rise up the politics ranks at the state level first and so all the partisan sniping and turmoil is kind of foreign to me. It’s kind of silly and I think it was true in the locker room too. Different people

44

Chapter 4

from different perspectives, different walks of life, with different experiences, and you are all suppose to come together and work together to achieve a common objective. It’s kind of the same way I view politics, 435 different personalities all with different outlooks on life, but at the end of the day got to figure out where the common ground ultimately lays or nothing gets done . . . I noticed also kind of a trend: The members of Congress who were involved in athletics, especially at the collegiate level, seem much more willing to reach across the aisle and try to find some common ground and try to work in a bipartisan fashion too because that’s the way locker rooms function. You can get caught up in the whole partisan hype that sometimes engulfs this place, not to say this place needs to be made up of all former athletes, you need a nice blend.” —Rep. Ron Kind30 “At the same time, I guess the once big difference between football and politics is that in football you usually generally understand the person wearing the opposite colored jersey is the opposition. Sometimes politics people that have the same color jersey that you do, they’re the opposition.” —Rep. J. C. Watts31

A sports game innately defines who your enemy is; politics isn’t nearly as concrete. In sports, you learn not only how to work on a team but you also learn how to work against a team; you need this in politics. In some ways, bi-partisanship is equivalent to sportsmanship. The preceding examples show how candidates used their own athletic experience and the experiences of others to demonstrate the discursive arguments of strength, success, community involvement, name recognition, and determination that qualify candidates in the eyes of the voters. Also, athletes use skills acquired from their athletic experiences while serving in office, such as bi-partisanship and communication skills, which tend to make them more likely to be re-elected. Athletics are another way for candidates to stress their worthiness for Congress.

Table 4.4. Candidate Gender and Athletic Experience Athletic Experience

Male

Amateur Professional Amateur Coaching Pro Coaching Family Member N

141 11 52 1 43 899

Female 21 1 2 0 4 162


45

WOMEN, ATHLETICS, AND RUNNING FOR CONGRESS As the data indicate, past amateur athletic experience is a significant factor in the success of congressional candidates in the 2002–2004 election, but what does this study determine about women and amateur athletic experiences? In other words, how does athletic experience relate to the gender of the candidate? The data collected show that male and female candidates are roughly equal in the percentage of each that describe their prior amateur sports participation. However, we find a major drop off in experience in the other four categories. Variables concerning athletic coaching experience (both professional and amateur) and professional athletic experiences are decidedly male; there are no female candidates who indicate practice in these areas. Only one woman uses the athletic experience of someone in her family in her biography. This research shows that female congressional candidates are confined to their participation in amateur sports, for the time being. Therefore, it is imperative that Title IX be maintained in order to allow women to achieve success in sports and subsequently success in their attempts to achieve political office. While researchers often find that the voting patterns of men and women cannot determine if they will vote more often for their own gender, men are often seen as the more capable of candidates because of social eligibility factors. Now that amateur athletic experience can be added to the pool and, most likely, professional athletic experience as the number of participants, increase, what does this mean for the future of women running for office? If men and women are both participating in amateur athletics in such a way that it would affect their decision to run for office, one can infer that it is proportionally more important for women given their relative lack of other areas to display leadership qualities. Of those women who won their elections in 2002 and 2004, roughly 25% indicated some athletic experience. One can only assume that the number of women who run for office who have previous athletic experience will increase because of the dramatic increase in the numbers of women who are now participating in sports. Sports have become important for political candidates, but even more so for women. As discussed before, many of the characteristics of the social eligibility pool are not frequently obtained by female candidates. By placing amateur athletic experience on this list, it could have a disproportionately positive impact on women in terms of their entry into the social eligibility pool. In order for women to be able to make themselves

46

Chapter 4

viable candidates for office, their ability to participate in athletics must not be restricted. This finding leads to the next chapter’s focus on Title IX and the battle to protect the rights of female athletes at the college level.

Notes 1. Watts, J. C. Interview by author. Tape recording, Boston, MA. 9 July 2009. 2. For example, see Bimber and Davis (2003), Rainie, Cornfield, and Horrigan (2004), Benoit (2006). 3. The collection includes Web sites for candidates who appeared on the final state ballots as well as Web sites for political party sites at the national level (all registered parties) and Democratic and Republican party sites at the state level; educational and research institutions; advocacy groups; government sites including federal, state and territorial, and election boards; creative expressions and miscellaneous Web sites related to the 2004 elections. This collection also included blogs (or Weblogs) centered on those certified as “Convention Bloggers” by the Democratic and Republican parties prior to the respective national conventions. 4. For a telling account of the role that high school football plays in the Southwest, see Friday Night Lights by H. G. Bissenger. It is the story of Odessa, TX, and its relationship with its state championship high school football team. 5. NCCA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report, 1999–2000; 2002–03, 11. 6. Estimated Probability of Competing in Athletics Beyond the High School Interscholastic Level, NCAA, 2009. 7. Extracted from http://www.smartforcongress.com/bio.htm, 3 June 2008. 8. Kind, Ron. Interview by author. Tape recording, Washington, DC, 2 June 2009. 9. Kind. Personal interview, 2 June 2009. 10. Extracted from http://www.voteconwell.com/bio.htm, 3 June 2008. 11. Watts. Personal interview, 9 July 2009. 12. Watts. Personal interview, 9 July 2009. 13. Extracted from http://www.kindforcongress.org/Page_files/bio_1.html, 6 June 2008. 14. Extracted from www.hersethforcongress.org/about_textonly.htm, 6 June 2008. 15. Extracted from www.claycoxforcongress.com/about_clay.htm, 6 June 2008. 16. Extracted from www.dutchforcongress.com/biography.html, 6 June 2008. 17. Watts. Personal interview, 9 July 2009. 18. Extracted from www.beckhamforcongress.com/biography.html, 3 June 2008. 19. Extracted from www.vanhollen2002.com/detailed_bio.htm, 3 June 2008. 20. Extracted from www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/races2002/wy/mikeenzi.shtml, 3 June 2008. 21. McMillen, Tom. Interview by author. Tape recording, Boston, MA, 23 July 2009.


22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

47

Watts. Personal interview, 9 July 2009. Extracted from www.timjohnsonforsd.com/tim.php, 6 June 2008. Extracted from www.inslee4congress.com/biography.html, 6 June 2008. Extracted from www.davidscottforcongress.com/biography.html, 6 June 2008. Extracted from www.tomosborneforcongress.com, 6 June 2008. Osborne, Tom. Interview by author. Tape recording, Boston, MA, 7 May 2009. Watts. Personal interview, 9 July 2009. Osborne. Personal interview, 7 May 2009. Kind. Personal interview, 2 June, 2009. Watts. Personal interview, 9 July 2009.

Chapter 5


“I’ve said this before, that everything I ever needed to know I learned on the basketball team. All about setting goals and working hard and having self-discipline and knowing what strengths were in the team members and then assembling those team members and tasking the team to fulfill missions. That’s what you learn in sports.” —Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, October 8, 2008

The potency of sports as a mechanism for the advancement of women in politics is only as strong as the policies that protect women’s right to participate in athletics. Despite all of the changes over the previous thirty-five years, Title IX of the Educational Amendment of 1972 remains the major catalyst of increased female participation in the athletic arena. Since its inception, Title IX has been the main reason for the success of both amateur and professional sporting venues for women. The numbers of women participating in amateur athletics has increased so dramatically that it forced the market to change its view of women’s professional sports as economically unfeasible and start leagues like the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA). Despite, or because of, its successes, Title IX continues to be the focal point in a debate over whether expanding opportunities for women comes at the expense of athletic opportunities for men. If amateur sports play a disproportionate role in providing opportunities for women to display their leadership potential, the impacts of this debate over Title IX have major implications for women’s use of sports as a vehicle for political careers. Since 2002, there have been numerous attempts by the federal government, particularly the executive branch, to change two of the three prongs of Title IX compliance. The 2002 Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, 49

50

Chapter 5

established by the George W. Bush Administration, looked at proportionality, and the 2005 online survey evaluation compliance mandate looked at interest level in athletics on college campus. The future of Title IX as presently constituted is not guaranteed. Any changes that make it easier for colleges to sidestep the provision of equal opportunity for women under Title IX could also undermine the great strides that have been made by women in sports. If sports have become a major component of the political elite and, therefore, the social eligibility pool, any erosion in the effectiveness of Title IX to promote equality between the sexes in athletic opportunities would have significant effects on the ability of women to pursue elected political office.

TITLE IX: POLICY DISCUSSION There was no mention of sports in the original legislation when Title IX1 was established. Signed into law by President Nixon on June 23, 1972, the bill was an effort to alleviate the perceived achievement gap between men and women at high school and collegiate levels in areas such as math, science, and medicine as well as to increase the number of women being accepted to the professional schools. The Javits Amendment, passed in 1974, established rules within Title IX “with respect to intercollegiate athletic activities, reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports” as a way to start the equity process with amateur athletics, but at the same time, protecting “big time” sports programs such as football.2 Additional language concerning athletics and scholarship money came from legislation passed in 1975. In 1979, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) developed an Intercollegiate Athletics Policy, which it also enforces, to regulate Title IX. In particular, the OCR clarified the issue of which programs were covered in a discussion of federally funded education programs to include athletics.3 Any discussion of Title IX as it relates to athletics is in reference to this legislation and its subsequent interpretation. School compliance with Title IX is, in a word, complicated. A school can demonstrate that it has provided equal opportunities for both men and women to participate in sports in one of three different ways: 1. The percentage of male and female athletes roughly reflects the enrollment patterns at the school. 2. The school can show that it has a history of providing opportunities to women, in most instances, the underrepresented gender. 3. The school can show that it is meeting female students’ abilities and interests to participate in sports fully. For example, schools can lead on-campus


51

discussions about the interest level of women in athletics and accommodate according to their interest level. Title IX proportionality compliance is based in three general areas: (1) athletic financial assistance, (2) accommodation of athletic interests and abilities, and (3) other athletic program areas such as practice time and coaches’ salaries. Scholarship money provided to students for athletic purposes must be based on the proportionality of the number of male and female students in that particular school. A school is compliant with this part of Title IX if the athletic financial assistance is distributed within 1 percent of the proportional population. That is, if a school has a 50 percent female population, to comply with Title IX it must award between 49 percent and 51 percent of its athletic scholarship funding to women. Each school thus will vary in how it must comply with the rules. However, for most major universities today, women make up nearly 53 percent of the undergraduate population, so the mandate to equalize spending on athletic scholarships has become pervasive and, consequently, controversial. Proportional equality must also be obtained to all the “bells and whistles” that come with participation in athletics. These include, for example, equal access to desirable game and practice time, proportionate travel allowances, and equivalent levels of equipment, supplies, and tutoring. The benefits themselves do not have to exact; however, they must in some way be determined to be equivalent.4 If the men’s soccer team practices on a good turf field at a reasonable time (say 4:00 p.m.), then the women’s soccer team has expectation of equal treatment. Of course, the first way to meet the compliance standard is the easiest to assess using statistical data, but the least flexible and hardest to maintain in practice. The second and third alternatives or prongs leave more room for flexibility, but in practice are harder for individual schools to show that standards are being met. The U.S. Department of Education in 1996 declared the first test a “safe harbor” and most schools now use it as their compliance standard because it is the least likely to be legally challenged.5 An early example of unequal treatment of men’s and women’s teams was the condition of the women’s basketball team at Michigan State University in 1978. The women on the team had to practice in an unheated gym that had a warped floor, drove themselves to games in borrowed cars, and had no medical attention at their games, unlike the men’s teams, which had brand new supplies and gear every year. The team filed suit with the Department of Heath, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and won a case in U.S. District Court, with the judge citing the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the justification for Title IX.6 A school has fulfilled all demands of Title IX if it is shown to comply in all three of these areas. In the process, some sense of gender equality is institutionalized.

52

Chapter 5

Title IX has gone above and beyond what was expected in terms of expanding women’s participation in sports. In 1972, when Title IX was passed, no more than 32,000 women participated in college athletics versus 170,384 men. By 2006, over 155,000 women were competing in sports at the collegiate level. At the high school level, girls have increased their participation in sports by 800 percent since 1972. If the sole purpose of Title IX was to increase the number of women participating in amateur sports, it could be deemed a success. However, success is all relative—the twenty-first century has ushered in a renewed effort to change the language and compliance rules of Title IX, even though the policy has not brought about gender equity in sports participation or financing. STRIKE ONE—COMMISSION ON OPPORTUNITIES IN ATHLETICS By the 2000s, complaints about the “reverse discrimination” effects of Title IX have become commonplace, if disputed, and it soon became clear that the Bush Administration was at least amenable to examining the matter. In 2002, Secretary of Education Rod Paige sought to loosen the compliance rules of Title IX with the establishment of the Commission on Opportunities in Athletics. The main drivers in the call for reform of Title IX were, interestingly, nonrevenue–producing male sports. The crux of the argument is that Title IX does not promote equality, but sets up a system of quotas for male and female athletes. This quota system in turn causes athletic departments to make financial decisions that typically lead to the elimination of less lucrative male sports like gymnastics, golf, swimming, and wrestling. “Critics of Title IX said that 355 men’s college athletic teams have been eliminated over the last decade, equating to more than 22,000 spots.”7 This line of reasoning was the main catalyst for the creation of the Commission on Opportunities in Athletics in 2002. The primary player in this “reform” movement was the National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA).8 In January 2002, the NWCA, in conjunction with the Committee to Save Bucknell Wrestling, the Marquette Wrestling Club, the Yale Wrestling Association, and the National Coalition for Athletics Equity filed a complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the U.S. Department of Education, to protect intercollegiate and scholastic athletic opportunities and teams from further elimination caused directly and indirectly by the unlawful rules that Defendant United States Department of Education (“USDE”) has issued under the color of implementing Title IX of the General Education Amendments Act of 1972.9


53

The suit goes on to describe discrimination against men’s athletics based on the “substantive discrimination prohibitions of Title IX and the Equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”10 The substance of the case is a declaration that the need to comply with Title IX has directly led to the elimination of wrestling programs at the high school and collegiate level across the country. More specifically, claimants argued that schools were being forced to establish women’s programs for the sake of gender equity and in many instances were paying for those new programs by cutting men’s sports, like wrestling. This was not the first time that Title IX had been challenged in court. In 1984, in the Supreme Court Case of Grove City College v. Bell, it was ruled that “Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal funds and had no bearing on non-federally funded programs, even if the sponsoring school received support.”11 This ruling, combined with a lack of enforcement on the part of the Reagan Administration, caused supporters of women sports to fear that the progress that had been made by Title IX would be wiped away. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 reinstated the power of Title IX, even though the Reagan Administration and the NCAA opposed the Act, and the first challenge to Title IX was pushed back.12 The 1994 Republican Congressional majority used Title IX as an example of quotas and brought forward legislation to loosen the compliance standards while protecting major male sports like football.13 Therefore, the arguments put forward by the NWCA’s case of quotas and reverse discrimination are not new. The merits of this quota argument can be called into question. First, as the National Women’s Law Center notes, not only are there no discussions or interpretations within the three-prong test that indicates any use of quotas, “the three-part test merely determines whether schools are setting the already sex-segregated limits the place on athletic participation opportunities in a non-discriminatory way.”14 The report goes on to dispute the often-repeated argument that gender equity is a misplaced goal because women are not as interested as men in participating in athletics to begin with. More important, with respect to the NWCA suit, the Center pointed out, roughly three-fourths of those schools that added women’s sports teams between 1992 and 2000 did so without eliminating any other team, male or female. Such arguments did not stop the case from getting attention within the Bush Administration. It may be interesting to note that one of the people that brought the case to Secretary Paige’s attention was Speaker of the House Denis Hastert, a former high school wrestling coach. When described in an article by www.themat.com, a Web site that declares itself the “Ultimate Source for Real Wrestling” and falls under the umbrella of USA Wrestling, Hastert has “been instrumental in looking to the welfare of his sport with his

54

Chapter 5

efforts to revamp Title IX and ‘clarify’ rules in an attempt to preserve collegiate wrestling from the unintended consequences of Title IX.” Nor was the Department of Education the only interested party in the discussion of reform of Title IX. Jessica Gavora, a policy advisor to Attorney General John Ashcroft, wrote a book entitled Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX, where she describes Title IX as a quota system that unfairly favors women over men and is unnecessary to begin with because women are not as interested in sports as men anyway (2002). The 2000 platform of the Republican Party stated that the GOP favored “a reasonable approach to Title IX that seeks to expand opportunities for women without adversely affecting men’s teams.”15 With the pressure from various groups mounting and the approval of President Bush, the decision to form the Secretary’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics was made, coincidently on the 30th anniversary of the passage of Title IX. According to the Commission’s charter, its purpose was to look at the “effectiveness of the Federal government’s Title IX enforcement.”16 Secretary Paige wanted the Commission to determine whether or not opportunities were being promoted for male athletes as well as females under the current language of Title IX.17 The argument behind the charter was one that can be seen in the NWCA’s case against the DOE. The Commission’s goals were to answer the questions posed in the suit: did colleges have clear guidelines on how to comply with Title IX; did the Office of Civil Rights have the ability to truly enforce the legislation; most importantly, did “the manner in which the Department enforces the law needlessly result[s] in the elimination of certain men’s teams.”18 Secretary Paige called for the Commission to answer the following seven questions in its findings: 1. Are Title IX standards for assessing equal opportunity in athletics working to promote opportunities for male and female athletes? 2. Is there adequate Title IX guidance that enables college and school districts to know what is expected of them and to plan for an athletic program that effectively meets the needs and interests of their students? 3. Is further guidance or other steps needed at the junior and senior high school levels, where the availability or absence of opportunities will critically affect the prospective interest and abilities of student athletes when the reach college age? 4. How should activities such as cheerleading or bowling factor into the analysis of equitable opportunities? 5. How do revenue-producing and large-roster teams affect the provision of equal athletic opportunities? The Department has heard from some parties that whereas some men athletes will “walk on” to intercollegiate


55

teams—without athletic financial aid and without having been recruited— women rarely do this. Is this accurate and, if so, what are its implications for Title IX analysis? 6. In what ways do opportunities in other sports venues, such as the Olympics, professional leagues, and community recreation programs, interact with the obligations of colleges and school districts to provide equal athletic opportunities? What are the implications for Title IX? 7. Apart from Title IX enforcement, are there other effort to promote athletic opportunities for male and female students that the Department might support, such as public-private partnerships to support the effort of schools and colleges in this area?19 The Commission itself was made up of fifteen members from all aspects of sports, including professional athletes, college athletic directors, coaches, and Olympic representatives.20 The make up of the Commission was one intended to show a balance in the discussion and was selected by the Department of Education, however, ten of the fifteen members represented schools with Division I-A football programs, whom critics say would have the most to gain from a dramatic change to Title IX.21 Secretary Paige’s main concern was to prevent the courts from ultimately deciding the validity of the NWCA’s argument. “[W]e believe that the better approach is to discuss all the questions openly, in a forum where all voices and all viewpoints are heard.”22 After so much fiery debate over what should be in the recommendations, calls to reform Title IX ended with more of a whimper than a bang. In a “Dear Colleague” letter, Gerald Reynolds, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (OCR), suggested that the Bush Administration saw no need to change the language or the tone of the legislation on Title IX. The first major point focused on the compliance issue. As stated previously, a clarification letter was sent out from the Department of Education in 1996 indicating that there were three ways that a school could prove it was in compliance with Title IX, and the method dealing with proportionality was considered to be a “safe harbor” against legal challenge. The 2003 letter made clear that “[a]ll three prongs have been used successfully by schools to comply with Title IX, and the test offers three separate ways of assessing whether schools are providing equal opportunities to their male and female students to participate in athletics . . . Each of the three prongs is thus a valid, alternative way for schools to comply with Title IX.”23 Through the letter, all three alternatives were given safe harbor status, not just proportional funding. The reasoning behind that declaration was to help schools more easily comply with Title IX. The letter went on to say that the DOE and OCR would help schools determine what method of compliance was best for them.

56

Chapter 5

The second point answered the question that had been the lead point for discussions and lawsuits calling for Title IX reform: does Title IX compliance force schools to cut men’s sports in order to fund women’s teams? The Assistant Secretary’s response was a resounding no, noting that “nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance with Title IX, and that the elimination of teams is a disfavored practice.” It continued by offering the services of the DOE and OCR to look into practices that would help curb the recent trend of cutting sports teams, such as actively pursuing schools that use this technique as a compliance method and continuing to allow schools to use outside financial sources to fund certain teams.24 In sum, the letter was exactly what it was called: a clarification piece on compliance that offered no change to Title IX as it was written. Why had the Bush Administration backed off its push to change Title IX, when there was so much pressure from men’s teams to find a solution to the problem affecting them? As with other political issues, it is likely a re-election situation came into play. Women and those who support greater access for women in athletics were an important voting block in the 2004 Presidential election, and the Bush Administration felt that the law, which was helping women and girls in sports, was basically working. Also, the Commission had been unable to keep the voices of the dissenters “in-house” with the release of minority opinions by Julie Foudy and Donna De Verona. The debate had become very public once the media got wind that two female Olympic gold medalists believed that their voices were not taken seriously on a committee established to discuss the future of the legislation that made their athletic careers possible. The ORC letter prompted a bit of confusion in both the pro- and antireform Title IX camps. The National Women’s Law Center, among other groups, expressed their elation with the Administration’s decision. According to Center Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger, “This puts to rest the uncertainty and speculation whether the administration and the Department of Education would weaken Title IX . . . And it allows attention to be where it should be, to enforce the law and to continue to fight for an equal playing field for young women in this country.” Members of the Commission that had been worried that the large Division I schools would get their way through the proposed recommendations saw this as a major victory for Title IX and for women and girls who have benefited from sports. The various coaching alliances that represented the smaller male sports most opposed to the status quo were critical of the Administration and the women’s organizations that had fought against the changes. Eric Pearson, Chairman of the College Sports Council, declared that “. . . the Administration has completely caved in to the gender-quota advocates.”25 The organization was especially frustrated because the lawsuit brought against the DOE by the College Sports


57

Council, the National Wrestling Coaches Association, and others was dismissed because the plaintiffs were not allowed to sue the Department of Education directly. Those who believed that Title IX and its three-pronged compliance system pose a direct threat to men’s sports have vowed to continue in their battle to change the legislation. Although no major policy changes came out of the Commission on Opportunities for Athletics, those seeking changes in Title IX were not satisfied with the status quo. The NWCA case was appealed in the federal court system, and organizations such as the NWCA, the College Sports Council, and the conservative Independent Women’s Forum are continuing to put pressure during the second Bush Administration. For the moment, however, those defending Title IX knew that their pressure made the Administration think twice about making dramatic changes.

STRIKE TWO—EMAIL SURVEY COMPLIANCE A Gallup Poll taken in January of 2003 warned the Administration that changing the language of Title IX might not be in its best political interest. Seventy percent (70%) of adults who knew about the policy felt that Title IX regulations should stay the same or be made stronger.26 It is no wonder that when the DOE was faced with an opportunity to change the proportionality prong of Title IX, it responded with a Dear Colleague letter that left the policy unchanged. However, this did not stop opponents of Title IX from making another major push toward the Bush Administration, especially newly appointed Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, to change the language of Title IX in order to protect men’s sports. On March 17, 2005, with very little public fanfare, the DOE posted on its Web site another “Dear Colleague” letter announcing a clarification to Part Three of Title IX. To reiterate, Part Three compliance means that the school has demonstrated that despite the under-representation of one sex in the intercollegiate athletics program, the needs, abilities, and interests of the members of that sex have been accommodated by the program as it stands. In order to show that one test is not more accepted or preferred than the other two, this clarification outlined factors that would “ . . . assess whether institutions . . . effectively accommodate the interest and abilities of male and female student athletes under Title IX” (OCR, 2005). The factor that was recommended by the OCR to use was surveys, most specifically, email surveys to gage female athletic interest on campus. The use of surveys as a tool to comply with Part Three of Title IX is not new. The OCR identified 132 athletic programs between 1992 and 2002 that used surveys to gage level of interest, with two-thirds of those programs

58

Chapter 5

being in compliance. However, it has long been assumed that Part One is the true safe harbor for schools, and like the letter issued in 2003, the 2005 letter reiterated that schools could comply using any of the three tests. The additional clarification from the OCR that caused red flags to go up in the Title IX advocacy world was the recommendation to use Web-based surveys that would go to the underrepresented sex by email in order to assess their interest level in varsity sports. In fact, the OCR provided a 25-page user guide for schools so that they may create the most “effective” Web-based surveys. What the OCR did not take into account was the methodological issues and very poor rate of response that Web-based surveys have, even within the college student population. Although students tend to have greater access to technology, studies have shown that that does not increase the likelihood that they will fill out the surveys. The University of Florida conducted a study on tobacco use on campus, using in-class, mail, and Web-based surveys. The Web-based survey only had a 10% response rate, as opposed to the in-class and mail surveys. The assumptions were that because students often don’t have their own computer, there was a lack of privacy in filling out the survey. Also, multiple email addresses often mean that the students do not always get the email survey. Other assumptions made about students are that they are comfortable with computer software including Web browsers. This comfort level may not be there for all students, therefore it may decrease the likelihood that the students will fill out or complete the survey. Survey design also can hinder response rates. For example, the OCR suggests a survey that requires students to fill out the answers to the questions before they can move on to the next screen. Dillman and Bowker and Gunn argue that this method detracts from the respondent’s willingness to complete the survey. Also, the use of separate screens for each question is problematic as it does not allow respondents to skip questions or get a general feel for the entire survey. Open-ended questions tend to be ignored or answered with one word answers. Different monitors often show the survey in different ways, which can bias the results, and privacy issues are always at the forefront of any discussion concerning the Internet.27 The OCR’s User Guide does not take into account the issues of computer knowledge, security, survey design, and access to computers that were explained previously. However, the most disturbing factor in the recommendation is that a non-response to a survey can be interpreted as a lack of interest if a disclaimer accompanies the Web-based survey that says if the students do not fill out the survey, “the institution will understand that the student is not interested in additional athletic participation” and the school will not be called upon to include other factors in their assessment of interest that was required of them previously. Therefore, even though the research shows that email


59

surveys that are conducted tend to have the lowest response rate (especially without a follow-up letter or phone call) of any of the types of surveys that can be issued on a college campus, the DOE is willing to accept this method of compliance on the same level as Test One (proportionality) would be. It is no surprise that organizations that rallied against the Commission on the Opportunity in Athletics became very vocal in the months that followed the publication of the 2005 “Dear Colleague” letter. However, one very vocal opponent of this specific clarification who was not part of the discussion in 2003 was the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its president, Myles Brand. In a press release marking the 33rd anniversary of Title IX, Brand emphatically opposed the clarification letter in his notes and stated “I believe that Title IX is one of the most significant higher education legislation passed in the last half century and it should not be diminished in any way” (NCAA, 2005). Joining Brand in his opposition were legislative giants such as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), thus bringing the policy argument once again to the public sphere. In December 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee requested a report from the Department of Education on the findings of the first year of the Part Three clarification. The day before the report was to be sent to Congress, Representatives Lynn Woosley (D-CA) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) introduced a resolution in Congress that called on the DOE to withdraw said clarification letter. Although that action has not been taken by the DOE as of yet, they did issue a report that was surprising in that no school has publicly used the model survey as a way to demonstrate that the school is in compliance with Title IX. As this report was made public on March 18, 2006, the larger question of why no school has used this “tool” will have to be discussed in future research. The use of Web-based survey results as the sole method of compliance of Title IX can definitely be seen as an attack on the only policy that protects a woman’s right to participate in amateur athletics on an equal playing field as her male counterparts. Online surveys weaken a school’s responsibility to comply with Title IX by allowing them to avoid compliance through proportionality. However, any modification of Title IX may be moot, as the number of women participating in college athletics does not add up.

STRIKE THREE—STRETCHING THE NUMBERS In a series of opinion pieces in Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal (2006, 2007), economist Andrew Zimbalist demonstrates that Title IX is not providing gender equity in participation at the collegiate level because

60

Chapter 5

enforcement of the law is not consistent.28 Through an analysis of NCAA sports sponsorship and participation rates, one can determine that Title IX is not providing the equity that the policy attempts to guarantee. The 2007–2008 academic year ushered in an all-time high amount of male and female athletes (NCAA, Feb. 2009). However, although 55% of students receiving an undergraduate college degree were female, only 43.6% of athletes across Divisions I, II, and III were women.29 Therefore, Title IX is not successful in maintaining athletic gender parity. The disparity between men and women should not just focus on participation numbers; there are other components of Title IX that make sports participation equal for men and women that need to be examined more closely. In its 2005–2006 Gender-Equity Report, the NCAA indicated that the percentage of money spent on female athletes was less than the percentage of women actually participating in organized collegiate athletics. From scholarship money to coaches’ salaries, women’s sports made no significant strides toward equity. In Division I athletics, 66% of all money spent went to men’s athletic programs. Moreover, a close look at the data determined that 68% of all the new money in collegiate athletics went to upgrades for already established football programs. Every other sport, whether male or female, was left fighting for a shrinking athletic budget dollar. Like any other student activity, more money enables more people to participate in high school and collegiate sports. If two-thirds of all colleges comply with the letter of Title IX, the numbers do not necessarily add up to equal participation or equal funding. There are still fewer women’s teams then men’s, and even still, those established women’s teams receive less funding and supplies than the men’s teams. Such limitations obviously constrain opportunities for women to compete in sports at the same level as men. It is therefore important to keep in mind that even though many are trying to change the language of Title IX, the policy has not reached its goal of gender parity in athletics. TITLE IX AND THE SOCIAL ELIGIBILITY POOL Since its inception, Title IX has helped women and girls gain access to higher educational programs and more important for this study, athletics. Even when faced with a strong attack, the supporters Title IX were able maintain the language of the policy so that it may continue to enforce compliance and defend the rights of women who wish to participate in athletics. For supporters, however, the battle is far from over. Title IX has not achieved its ultimate goal of equity in sports for men and women. As indicated, women still make up less than 43% of all college athletes and


61

receive roughly 33 percent of scholarship and operational money that goes into Division I, II, and III college athletics. Those seeking gender equity continue to believe that female athletes are getting shortchanged during their collegiate sports experience because of the perceived ineffectiveness of the Department of Education and its Office of Civil Rights in enforcing the legislation. In their view, to rely solely on the schools themselves to divulge their athletics’ budgets enables the schools to evade accountability, while the DOE does too little to track information and hold schools accountable. Even with the release of the “Dear Colleague” letter in July 2003, the tenor of the letter continues to allow schools to comply to Title IX “with all deliberate speed.” If the DOE makes an effort to crack down on schools that are not living up to the standards of one of the three prongs and, maybe more importantly, do a better job with their outreach to supporters of male sports who feel they are the ultimate losers in the efforts of women to gain equality, this could be a step toward ending the tension between both sides of the Title IX debate and allow for real solutions to be put on the table about the decline of smaller budget male sports in the United States. This study has shown that athletic experience is used by 25% of candidates who run for Congress to increase their viability in the eyes of voters. If schools do not meet the standards of equity presented by Title IX or if Title IX compliance is made easier by limiting the opportunities that are given to female athletes, this will create another hurdle for women to jump over in gaining viability and access to political office. If it harder for women to play on a team, it will be harder for them to have this new criteria found in the social eligibility pool: that being athletic experience. Women cannot be given any more barriers to political office than they already have. It is necessary for women to have equal opportunities in the sports arena so that they may continue to strive for equal opportunities in the political arena.

Notes 1. The exact language of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.1681 et seq.) reads, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 2. History of Title IX Legislation, Regulation, and Policy Interpretation. NCAA Publications: October 4, 2004. 3. History of Title IX Legislation, 2004.

62

Chapter 5

4. National Women’s Law Center. Quick Facts on Women and Girls in Athletics, 2004. 5. Brady, Eric. “Major Changes Debated For Title IX.” USA Today. December 28, 2002:1(A). 6. Dyer, K. F. Challenging the Men: Women in Sport; The Social Biology of Female Sporting Achievement (St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1982), 117. 7. Strauss and Allen. “Panel Named to Study Title IX: Law’s Fairness to be Examined.” 2002. The Washington Post: 27. 8. The following is the mission statement of the National Wrestling Coaches Association, taken from their Web site: “The National Wrestling Coaches Association, established in 1928, is a professional organization dedicated to serve and provide leadership for the advancement of all levels of the sport of wrestling with primary emphasis on scholastic and collegiate programs. The membership embraces all people interested in amateur wrestling. The NWCA, through its organizational structure, promotes communication, recognizes achievement, recommends rules and regulations, sponsors events, and serves as an educational and informational source. Additionally, the NWCA strives to foster the sportsmanship and integrity that are the cornerstone of athletic competition.” 9. Extracted from http://www.nwcaonline.com/titleix.cfm, Jan 16, 2002, 2. 10. Extracted from http://www.nwcaonline.com/titleix.cfm, Jan 16, 2002, 3. 11. Cahn, Susan. Coming On Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sports (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 257. 12. Nelson, Mariah Burton. Are We Winning Yet?: How Women Are Changing Sports and Sports Are Changing Women (New York: Random House Publishing, 1991), 160. 13. Festle, Mary Jo. Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 279–280. 14. National Women’s Law Center. Quick Facts on Women and Girls in Athletics, 2004, 6. 15. Strauss and Allen. “Panel Named to Study Title IX: Law’s Fairness to Be Examined,” The Washington Post, June 28, 2002, p. A27. 16. The Secretary’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, July, 2002, p. 1. 17. Brady. “Major Changes Debated for Title IX,” 1A. 18. Brady. “Major Changes Debated for Title IX,” 1A. 19. U.S. Department of Education, Secretary’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics. Open to All: Title IX at Thirty, Washington, DC, p. 3. 20. The Commission was co-chaired by former professional basketball player and coach Cynthia Cooper and Stanford University Athletic Director Ted Leland. Other members were Deborah Yow, AD, University of Maryland; Julie Foudy, president, Women’s Sports Foundation and professional soccer player in the WUSA; Rita Simon, president, Women’s Freedom Network; Muffet McGraw, head women’s basketball coach, Notre Dame University; Donna de Varona, Chairperson, USOC Government Relations Committee; Cary Groth, AD, Northern Illinois University;


63

Mike Silve, Commissioner, Conference USA; Bob Bowlsby, AD, University of Iowa; Tom Griffith, General Counsel, BYU; Percy Bates, Professor, Director of Programs for Educational Opportunity, University of Michigan; Graham Spanier, President, Penn State University; Gene DeFillipo, AD, Boston College. 21. Brady, Erik. “Major Changes Debated for Title IX,” USA Today, December 18, 2002, News, p.1A. 22. Strauss and Allen. “Panel Named to Study Title IX: Law’s Fairness to be Examined,” The Washington Post, June 28, 2002, p. A27. 23. “Dear Colleague Letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gerald Reynolds: Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX,” July 11, 2003, p. 1–2. 24. “Dear Colleague Letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gerald Reynolds: Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX,” July 11, 2003, p. 1–2. 25. The College Sports Council is a national coalition of swimming, gymnastics, track, golf, and wrestling coaches. 26. Kiefer, Heather Mason. “What Do Americans See in Title IX’s Future?” Gallup Brain. Jan 28, 2003. 27. Dillman, Tortora, and Bowker. “Principles for Constructing Web Surveys,” Pullman, Washington, SESRC Technical Report 98–50, 1998; Gunn, Holly. “Webbased Surveys: Changing the Survey Process.” First Monday, No. 7 (2002): 1–16. 28. Andrew Zimbalist. “GAO Report on Intercollegiate Athletic Participation Belies Title IX Critics.” Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 2007; “Numbers Show It’s Time to Start Playing by the Title IX Rules Again.” Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 2006. 29. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. School Enrollment in the United States—2007.

Chapter 6


In 2004, Jim Ryun (R–KS) won his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. The campaign Web site for the Olympic silver medal winner and former world record holder in the mile exhorted voters to “Run with Ryun for Families . . . Values . . . Leadership . . . Kansas.”1 The former star athlete used all of the characteristics on which he relied to excel in sports to demonstrate to constituents his viability as a candidate for office.

REVIEWING THE FINDINGS What makes a candidate viable in the eyes of the voters? What makes someone qualified to run for office? Why do voters tend to opt for certain types of people and not others? How much are such tendencies rooted in broad characteristics—racial or ethnic group, gender, etc.—versus more idiosyncratic traits, those tied to respective candidates’ presentation of self? Whatever the broader issues, it is clear that to date, women, when compared to men, have faced greater obstacles to being seen as viable candidates for elected office. This study has examined candidates’ use of sports in election campaigns as a way to understand broader issues of candidate viability and, in particular, the hurdles that women must overcome to achieve political office. The focus of this study was to determine the extent to which athletic participation has become a social eligibility factor in the success of candidates for elected office. By extension, it examined the role participation in athletics played for women looking to run for office. Finally, the study 65

66

Chapter 6

appraised the ways in which potential cutbacks in already limited opportunities for women in sports might further affect their opportunities to attain viable candidate status. Women struggle to attain validity for many reasons. The first obstacles to women’s viability are the “social restraints” that come from cultural norms assigning women to certain biologically and culturally defined roles. Commonly accepted perceptions about women in family and motherhood roles typically offer them little room to advance alternative career paths. These socially defined sex roles in turn serve to decrease women’s political activity. Women certainly have made great strides in society and specifically politics, but too many voters continue to see them as “not tough enough” to handle the job. Such perceptions make female candidates seem unqualified, if not illegitimate. Also, from this perception comes the idea that women themselves feel that they are not qualified to run for office because they feel that they do not know enough about the system or that politics are too “messy” for women’s involvement. Athletic participation could be a way for female candidates to change voters’ perception of their inadequacies. Although women are participating in organized athletics at the greatest level ever, the female amateur and professional athlete has not taken to the political arena as readily as her male counterparts. As of 2004, there are no women in the U.S. Congress with prior careers as professional athletes, as opposed to seven men. However, the aforementioned trends in female participation in amateur athletics would suggest that it is only a matter of time before women begin to use their athletic careers as springboards to public office. For those concerned with women achieving political office in the United States, including the presidency, participation in sports and all of the descriptive rights and privileges that come with that participation could be factors that create more viable female political candidates and potential leaders in the eyes of the American voter. Women who play sports have already made major strides in the business world and become elites in their fields. According to a study sponsored by the Oppenheimer Funds and the MassMutual Financial Group, women who have participated in athletics say that is a major part of their success in business. Over 80 percent of 401 women surveyed played sports at the junior high, high school, or college level, with basketball being the most often indicated sport. The women who did play sports indicated that participation in athletics increased their discipline, leadership skills, and the “ability to function as part of a team.” Others have found that if women and girls play sports, they develop life leadership skills that could be successfully used in achieving power. Robin Gerber, senior scholar at the University of Maryland’s Academy of Leadership, found


67

that team sports “create an understanding of teamwork and loyalty . . . teach how to fail and recover . . . build a competitive spirit. . . . and build courage.”2 Interest in sports that usually came from their own participation is also seen as a benefit to these women because it creates a pleasant subject to talk about at work and it crosses the gender divide with more and more ease today. Successful women are able to take the lessons that they learned playing team and individual sports and use them in other aspects of their life. Therefore, it is important that we look at how elite athletic participation could be used in the political world. In 2003, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation published a handbook for women running for office dealing with key policy areas in the wake of the attacks of September 11. 3 This handbook, Speaking With Authority: From Economic Security to National Security, focuses on the style of language that female candidates should use when talking about issues of homeland security, terrorism, war, and economic recession. The study discusses how often women are not perceived as having “military toughness” and that their language concerning national security should focus on “. . . a consensusbuilding leadership style.”4 Although women may not come by military experience as readily as men, the toughness voters deem necessary to successful leadership is found in athletic experience. Indeed, the Officer Candidate School of the Marine Corps suggests that “[T]he female athlete is often a perfectionist, physically strong, assertive, aggressive, and competitive, with high goals she sets athletically and in other areas of her life.”5 Consensus-building is a synonym for teamwork, and there are few better arenas to learn how to work together with others than in sports. As female participation in athletics increases, so too does the legitimacy of female athletes in general, and as candidates for public office. Sports, although a sex-segregated arena, may be the one activity by which men and women can be judged equally after their participation is over. Elite athletes, no mater what their sex, contend with enormous pressure and receive unprecedented fame when successful. Therefore, women should use their sports experiences as a tool to achieve public office.

SAMENESS VERSUS DIFFERENCE—DOES IT REALLY MATTER? The second factor in which women can use sports to help their political ambition is to justify why they should be in public office while there are men in office that, some might argue, already serve women’s

68

Chapter 6

policy needs. In this regard, the argument that all of its citizens must be descriptively represented for a nation to have a true democracy loses steam after a closer examination of women who hold federal office. These female politicians often have the same backgrounds as their male counterparts in the sense that they are often wealthy and white, with previous political experience. The sameness/difference argument comes in to play when discussing the importance of whether women who hold public office will change the discourse and discussion in Congress. On the other hand, should women be in office because even though they are women, they will not change the nature of the political system, just add to it? Many feminist theorists have difficulty supporting one or the other point of view. Barbara Burrell contends that there are substantive and procedural concerns where having more women in office makes a difference.6 This argument is based on evidence that women and men not only have divergent life experiences (e.g., childbirth), but also, perhaps as a result, differ in the ways that they think about the policy problems that emerge in legislative and other decision arenas. To Burrell and others, the policy ramifications of such perceptual differences speak to the need for more female office holders in the United States.7 This argument—typically described as the sameness/difference dichotomy by feminist scholars—invariably produces two very different formulas through which women’s rights can be protected or access for women be expanded by the law. The first formula, based on the sameness principle that men and women are equal, simply calls for guarantees; woman must be granted equal protection under the law. Those who argue for equal protection claim that because men and women are equal, there is nothing about women biologically or otherwise for which they should be compensated or protected. Men and women should have the same rights, but nothing more. Feminist scholars in that school of thought argue that such a simple rule could guarantee equality by removing artificial barriers to equal treatment under the law and in the process would help women achieve greater status in society. By contrast, those who make a difference argument claim that because women are different in fundamental ways (e.g., biology, social rules, etc.) and that those differences frequently work against equal opportunity for women in society, women should enjoy some of the same protections and supports previously extended to racial minorities to compensate for generations of discrimination, such as Affirmative Action. Those who make this argument also tend to see a difference in the way that men and women lead and call for more women in office in order to lessen the gap between the two genders.


69

However, both argue that there is a need for women to serve in office in order for women to have true equality in the United States. Whatever their disagreements, both arguments relate to policy decisions created by male and (occasionally) female politicians. Those who adhere to the difference argument aver that women are so different that their greater presence in public life would change the nature of politics as we know it. That is, female officeholders would bring with them entirely new sets of values (e.g., “nurturing”) that in turn would change political discourse and by extension policy outcomes. However, to others such a perceived “female trait” is a weakness, if not a complete fallacy. They argue that expanded female participation in the political arena would undermine the traditional norms important to the functioning of the political process and might even hurt the nation. For example, female leaders have been found to show different styles than those men that hold the same positions. Those who look at female members of Congress find that their votes and interests tend to follow patterns that consist of “women’s issues” (e.g., education, childcare, health care) and on the foreign policy front, tend to be more wary of using military force. In this regard, it is instructive that such prominent female office holders as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have felt the need to prove their credentials in the areas of national security and international affairs in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, if only to stave off perceptions that women aren’t “tough enough” to make the hard decisions designed to protect the nation and its citizenry. The difference argument, then, suggests that more women in politics will produce very different outcomes. On the other hand, if the core perceptions and actions that women bring to the political arena are fundamentally the same as their male counterparts, an infusion of more women into politics will have no discernible policy impact. Proponents of this argument typically suggest that basic ideological values (e.g., conservative versus liberal) trump anything narrowly deriving from gender. Support for this argument can be found in the fact that only one out of thirteen women senators voted against the resolution authorizing President Bush to undertake military action against Iraq if its leadership did not comply with the weapons inspectors, a ratio proportional to that for their male counterparts. In both instances, moreover, those who voted against the resolution were liberal Democrats. In this instance, at least, policy superceded gender. If, as Richard Fenno famously observed, all members of Congress are goal-seekers who base their actions on re-election, power within Congress, or some personal conception of the public good, it makes no difference whether the members were men or women.8

70

Chapter 6

Some scholars believe that the argument does not have to be sameness or difference, that “sameness and difference do not have to be mutually exclusive.”9 Eileen McDonagh argues in her discussion of democratization and political leadership that the ideas of “individual equality and women’s group difference” can be combined in an effort to help women achieve positions of power in society.10 A candidate can show both a commitment to an already established system while at the same time changing the tenor of the discussions that are occurring within the system. This argument helps explain more clearly the battle that female candidates face when attempting to win public office. This balance is often seen in the analysis of female sports participants. A female candidate, who may be lacking in characteristics of the social eligibility pool, especially political efficacy and political experience, could use her athletic experience to make up for these deficiencies. Strength, leadership, teamwork, a willingness to not quit, all can be shown through a simple anecdote of a past game or an exciting play in which the candidate once participated. Given the popularity of sports and the prevalence of sporting metaphors in popular culture, candidates who can exhibit such connections become more viable to the voting population. Women could close the gap between their male counterparts and increase their viability in the eyes of the voters by participating in sports. Through athletics, women could demonstrate traditional masculine skills of strength and leadership as well as more feminine skills such as cooperation through teamwork and bipartisanship. As stated before, sports experiences have already helped women gain positions of power in the business and military fields; it only seems logical that they could continue to work in the world of politics. The characteristics of the social eligibility pool—education level, profession, past political experience, political efficacy—have been consistent for the past five decades, and there is no indication that they will change fundamentally any time soon. But the inclusion of a new factor, in this case athletic participation, could be a benefit for female candidates in particular. The number of women participating in athletics has risen dramatically over the last three decades since the adoption of Title IX. As more and more women play sports at both the amateur and professional levels, more women subsequently possess one of the viability traits necessary to be a successful politician in the United States. Women who participate in sports can use the lessons that have been so successfully transferred to the business world in the political arena. The words leadership, teamwork, and strength, for example, are used to describe the characteristics of a viable political leader. Those same words are used to


71

describe those who participate in sports. With the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the word hero is used less and less to describe professional athletes in particular, but on the local level athletes still occupy heroic statures and in many communities still are considered as celebrities. That local notoriety is critical to their future careers in elected office. If women historically have faced difficulties obtaining those traits or experiences deemed as central components of the social eligibility pool, this study suggests that athletic experience offers women unique opportunities to develop and exhibit those skills and records of achievement. For women, perhaps even more than for African American males like J. C. Watts—the former House member whose college career as quarterback at Oklahoma paved the way for his political career—athletics offers a long-sought viability. Thus athletic experience should be included in the list of indicators that make some eligible to hold political office. Athletic participation offers women a way to enter the social eligibility pool, thus allowing women a better opportunity to prove their viability as candidates for public office. At its heart, the debate over difference versus sameness has important policy ramifications. If women are fundamentally different, then their continued under-representation in politics robs the nation of a critical voice and undercuts the normative power of democratic government. If, however, women and men are similar enough that ideology trumps gender on most issues, then any under-representation of women in decision making has little practical importance. The normative impacts of such changes are also important if one assumes that democratic legitimacy derives in part from the belief that all citizens have the right to equal access to the political system. If women are in some way prohibited from gaining equal access to political leadership positions in the United States, then the democracy is not fulfilling its purpose—to be a government for the people. If there are different rules for men and women when it comes to participating in sports, then this could in turn effect political participation and thus weaken the American democratic system.

SOCIAL ELIGIBILITY AND THE FUTURE OF TITLE IX With the increasing importance of sports experience for women in mind, an expansion or constriction of opportunities for women in athletics also has implications for opportunities in politics, or even in other career paths (e.g. business). The recent demise of women’s professional soccer

72

Chapter 6

and the general struggles to establish viable women’s professional sports notwithstanding, I argue here that any reduction in opportunities for women in amateur sports will have even more profound implications beyond athletics. After all, most of the female candidates examined in this study made reference to their experiences in high school and college athletics, not professional sports. For women, amateur athletics are everything. Title IX has been the key to opening opportunities for women in high school and collegiate athletics. As a result, any major changes in Title IX will have disproportionately profound impacts on women—and far beyond the athletic arena. If it is necessary for women to find a factor of the social eligibility pool that makes them viable political candidates, and if I argue that this factor lies in amateur athletic experience, then any restrictions on women’s ability to participate in high school or college sports will in turn diminish their opportunities to be successful candidates for office. Arguments that say Title IX has caused the slow death of non-revenue producing male sports such as wrestling are both inaccurate and misplaced. First, as the most recent report by the Women’s Sports Foundation suggests, although there have been numerical declines in collegiate male wrestling, swimming, and gymnastics programs over the past 30 years, the overall number of men participating in sports still outweighs women by over 55,000 athletes. Women also received $133 million less in scholarship money than did men—and 68 percent of all the new money went to pre-existing football programs.11 Indeed, the core issue in battles over Title IX is not really gender, but money. The real enemy for most collegiate wrestling teams in not a women’s crew or ice hockey team, but the football team. The average size of a Division I college football squad in 2001 was 115 athletes, up from 103 in 1982. Also, there are over 24,300 students participating in Division I football, dwarfing any other sports participation by thousands.12 However, it is to the benefit of college football to make Title IX and, therefore, women’s athletics the scapegoat for decreasing amounts of smaller male teams at the collegiate levels, because football is not only a major money maker for the schools themselves, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association also profits greatly from football, with revenue from television contracts and athletic gear leading the charge. Interestingly, relatively few college teams make any money for their universities. “For example, more than 100 Division I institutions operate at a deficit in football ranging from $630,000 to over $1,000,000” (NWLC,


73

2004). A Division I-AA football school like Northeastern University spends roughly $3 million, and rarely if ever does the school make a profit. Contrary to the argument that football produces revenue for other sports programs, for the majority of schools, especially those who do not qualify for the Bowl Championship Series, football is actually a drain on their athletic budget. Seen from this perspective, Title IX is not the cause for any decline of nonrevenue producing men’s collegiate sports. However, such facts rarely prevent attacks on Title IX. Women’s access to athletics is of concern today because of the Bush Administration’s effort to “reform” Title IX and to change the definition of equal distribution of funds between men and women that participate in high school and college athletics in 2003 and in 2005. These changes did not occur; however, this is not the last battle that Title IX will have to fight in order to maintain equality in athletics. A woman’s ability to participate equally in amateur athletics and, in turn, professional sports, will decrease if any changes that were proposed in 2003 and 2005 were to be proposed again. There are already movements afoot, mainly through college wrestling programs and coaches, to discuss the changes again. We could see a plateau or eventual decrease in participation numbers as well as public support for female athletes if this occurs. Restrictions on access to sports further restrict the potential of women to gain access to the political realm. Anytime that limits are placed on women, there are ramifications that are not just seen in its sphere. If Title IX is “reformed” in the ways proposed by the Department of Education in 2003 or 2005, another door will close and women will continue to have difficulty obtaining the ever-important social eligibility pool characteristics that will prepare them for political office. The importance of Title IX should not be underestimated.

THOUGHTS FOR THE FUTURE For a country to be truly democratic, representation cannot be limited to those who have a more advantageous position in society. Democratic representation, in the truest sense of the words, must be descriptive. With women making up more than 50 percent of the population, the idea that only 13 percent of the members of Congress are women holds little hope for those who feel that a democracy must be representative of a country’s make up. The United States is woefully lagging behind other Western democracies in the number of women holding public office.

74

Chapter 6

Looking at state legislatures would be the next step in this discussion, if only for the fact that more women serve at the state level than at the federal level. Also, looking at women in executive positions (mayors, governors) might hold interesting findings because of the recent trend in former governors becoming president and the calls by many that this might be the successful launching point for the next viable female presidential candidate. If women could prove viability at the state level through the election to a gubernatorial seat, perhaps this would increase their chances of having a shot at the Oval Office. Currently, those who dominate Congress—and American politics in general—are white men who typically could be described as affluent, highly educated professionals who have held prior public office and who possess deep knowledge about the political system. To date, women have found it difficult to amass these experiences and develop these traits and to in turn become part of the social eligibility pool. Athletic experience could be the characteristic that helps women gain entry into the political sphere. If women continue to participate in high school and collegiate athletics at the record levels we see today, it is only a matter of time before they, like Jim Bunning or Jim Ryun, are able to use their reputation in sports to gain entry into other spheres. The characteristics that come from playing sports are those that are considered to be standards of candidate viability. Women should use sports to their advantage in gaining political office. Therefore, it is imperative that the proportionality rule of Title IX not be changed. Any changes in Title IX will, in turn, slant the playing field in favor of male candidates even more so.

Notes 1. Extracted from www.jimryun.com, October 11, 2008. 2. Gerber, Robin. “Team Sports Create Leaders,” USA Today, 26 February 2003, 13a(N). 3. The Barbara Lee Family Foundation is an organization dedicated to the goals of helping women achieve political office, especially creating tools and handbooks in order to eventually see a woman become president of the United States. Based out of Cambridge, MA, the Foundation has recently published “Keys to the Governor’s Office; Unlock the Door: The Guide for Women Running for Governor” and funded the Center for Women and Politics at Rutgers University’s recent study “Women in State Legislatures: Past, Present, and Future.” 4. Lee Family Foundation, 10.


75

5. http://www.ocs.usmc.mil/femaleathletetriad.htm Interestingly, this statement comes from a pamphlet on looking for signs of eating disorders in women who serve in the Marines because of society’s pressure on them to be feminine. 6. Burrell. A Woman’s Place, 152. 7. Burrell. A Woman’s Place, 153. 8. Fenno. 1976. 9. McDonagh, Eileen. “Political Citizenship and Democratization: The Gender Paradox,” American Political Science Review 3, No. 96 (2002): 548. 10. McDonagh. “Political Citizenship,” 548–549. 11. NCAA. 2008. 12. NCAA. 2008.

Bibliography

Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Anderson. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Science Research Quarterly 46, no. 3 (August, 1993): 527–545. Andrews, David L., and Steven J. Jackson, eds. Sports Stars: The Cultural Politics of Sporting Celebrity. New York: Routledge, 2001. Badenhausen, Kurt. “The World’s Highest Paid Athletes: Nothing Can Stop the Tiger Woods Money Machine.” Forbes Magazine. July 17, 2009. Basil, Michael D., and William J. Brown. “Magic Johnson and Mark McGwire: The Power of Identification with Sports Celebrities.” In Sports Marketing and the Psychology of Marketing Communication, eds. Lynne R. Kahle and Chris Riley. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erllbaum Associates, Publishers, 2004. Beth, Marian W. “The Elite and the Elites.” The American Journal of Sociology 47, no. 5 (April, 1942): 746–755. Bledsoe, Timothy, and Mary Herring. “Victims of Circumstances: Women in Pursuit of Political Office.” American Political Science Review 84: no. 1 (Jan 1990): 212–223. Bottomore, Thomas. Elites and Society. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Brady, Erik. “Major Changes Debated For Title IX.” USA Today. Dec. 18:1A, 2002. Burnham, James. The Managerial Revolution. New York: Putnam, 1942. Burrell, Barbara C. “John Bailey’s Legacy: Political Parties and Women’s Candidacy for Public Office.” In Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? ed. Lois Lovelace Duke. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. ———. A Woman’s Place Is in the House. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1994. ———. “Political Parties, Women’s Organizations, and Efforts to Recruit Women Candidates.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, Eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 77

78

Bibliography

Burton, Michael, and John Higley. “The Study of Political Elite Transformations.” International Review of Sociology 11, no. 2 (1998): 181–199. Bush, Alan J., Craig A. Martin, and Victoria D. Bush. “Sports Celebrity Influence on the Behavioral Intentions of Generation Y.” Journal of Advertising Research, (March 2004): 108–118. Cahn, Susan. Coming On Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sports. New York: The Free Press, 1994. Carroll, Susan J. “Political Elites and Sex Difference in Political Ambition: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Politics 47, no. 4 (1985): 1231–1243. ———. Women as Candidates in American Politics, 2nd ed. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994. ———. “Voting Choices: Meet You at the Gender Gap.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Carroll, Susan J., and Wending Strimling. Women’s Routes to Elective Office. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983. Charter—Secretary’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, July, 2002 Cook, Elizabeth A. “Voter Reaction to Women Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Cook, Elizabeth A., Sue Thomas, and Clyde Wilcox, ed. The Year of the Woman. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1994. Costantini, Edmond, and Kenneth H. Craik. “Women as Politicians: The Social Background, Personality, and Political Careers of Female Party Leaders.” Journal of Social Issues 28, no. 2 (1972): 217–236. Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961. Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. Women, Elections, and Representation, 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. “Dear Colleague Letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gerald Reynolds: Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX.” July 11, 2003 Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008–09. Diamond, Irene. Sex Roles in the State House. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977. Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., and Bowker, D. “Principles for Constructing Web Surveys,” Pullman, Washington, SESRC Technical Report 98–50, 1998. Dodson, Debra L. “Change and Continuity in the Relationship between Private Responsibilities and Public Officeholding: The More Things Change, the More Things Stay the Same.” Policy Studies Journal 25 (Winter 1997): 569–584. Dodson, Debra L. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Dolan, Julie, Melissa Deckman, Michele L. Swers. Women and Politics: Paths to Power and Political Influence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007. Dolan, Kathleen. “Gender Differences in Support for Women Candidates: Is There a Glass Ceiling in American Politics?” Women and Politics 17 (1997): 27–41.

Bibliography

79

———. “Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman.’” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1998): 272–293. ———. “Electoral Context, Issues, and Voting for Women in the 1990s.” In Women and Congress: Running, Winning, and Ruling, ed. Karen O’Connor. New York: New Haworth Press, 2001. ———. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004. ———.“Symbolic Mobilization? The Impact of Candidate Sex.” In Legislative Elections: Getting Elected, Getting Ahead, ed. Beth Reingold. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008a. ———. “Women Voters, Women Candidates: Is There a Gender Gap in Support for Women Candidates?” In Voting the Gender Gap, ed. Lois Duke Whitaker. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2008b. ———. “Women as Candidates in American Politics: The Continuing Impact of Sex and Gender.” In Political Women and American Democracy, ed. Wolbrecht, Christina, Karen Beckwith, and Lisa Baldez. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008c. Dolan, Kathleen, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. “Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Gender Balance in Government.” American Politics Research 37, no.3 (2009): 409–428. Domhoff, G. William. The Power Elite and the State. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990. ———.“Mills’s ‘The Power Elite’ 50 Years Later.” Contemporary Sociology 35, no. 6 (2006): 547–550. ———.Who Rules America?: Power, Politics, and Political Change. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. Domhoff, G. William, and Thomas Dye. Eds. Power Elites and Organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1987. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. “The Bottleneck: Women Becoming Candidates.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, & Future, ed. Thomas, Sue and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ———. “Presidential Elections: Gendered Space and the Case of 2004.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Dyer, K. F. Challenging the Men: Women in Sport; The Social Biology of Female Sporting Achievement. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1982. Eitzen, D. Stanley, and George H. Sage. Sociology of North American Sport, 8th ed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2009. “Equal Opportunity for Women in Athletes: A Promise Yet to be Filled: A report to the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics.” Prepared by the National Women’s Law Center, August 2002. Festle, Mary Jo. Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Fox, Richard L. Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, 1997.

80

Bibliography

———. “Gender and Congressional Elections.” In Gender and American Politics, eds. Sue Tolleson-Rinehart and Jyl J. Josephson. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. ———. “Congressional Elections: Where Are We on the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Fox, Richard L. and Jennifer L. Lawless. “Family Structure, Sex-Role Socialization, and the Decision to Run for Office.” Women and Politics 24, no.4 (2003): 19–48. ———. “Entering the Political Arena: Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48, no.2 (2004): 264–280. ———. “To Run or Not to Run for Office: Explaining Nascent Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3 (2005): 642–659. Fulton, Sarah A., Cherie D. Maestas, L. Sandy Maisel, Walter J. Stone. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Office.” Political Research Quarterly 59, no.2 (2006): 235–248. Gavora, Jessica. Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX. New York: Encounter Books, 2002. Gender Equity/Title IX: Important Facts. NCAA Publications, 2004. Gerber, Robin. “Team Sports Create Leaders,” USA Today, News, pg. 13a, February 26, 2003. Gerzog, Irwin N. Congressional Women: Their Recruitment, Integration, and Behavior, 2nd ed., Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995. ———. “Women’s Changing Pathways to the US House of Representatives: Widows, Elites, and Strategic Politicians.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002. Gladstone, Leslie, and Gary Galemore. Sex Discrimination in Education: Overview of Title IX. Congressional Research Service, 1998. Gunn, Holly. “Web-based Surveys: Changing the Survey Process.” First Monday. No.7 (2002): 1–16. History of Title IX Legislation, Regulation, and Policy Interpretation. NCAA Publications: October 4, 2004. Herrenson, Paul S., J. Celeste Lay, Atiya Kai Stokes. “Women Running as Women: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies.” Journal of Politics 65, no. 1 (2003): 244–255. Heywood, Leslie and Shari Dworkin. Built to Win: The Female Athlete as Cultural Icon. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. Hoberman, John M. Sport and Political Ideology. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1984. Hogshead-Makar, Nancy, and Andrew Zimbalist. ed. Equal Play: Title IX and Social Change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007. James, D. C. S., Chen, W. W., Sheu, J. “Comparison of Three Tobacco Survey Methods with College Students: A Case Study.” The International Electronic Journal of Health Education (www.iejhe.org), no. 8 (2005): 120–125.

Bibliography

81

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Kahle, Kevin E., and Lynn Kahle. “Sports Celebrities’ Image: A Critical Evaluation of the Utility of Q Scores.” In Creating Images and the Psychology of Marketing Communication, ed. Lynn R. Kahle and Chung-Hyun Kim. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, 2006. Kahn, Kim. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Comsequences of Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Keller, Suzanne. Beyond the Ruling Class, New York: Random House, 1963. ———. “Celebrities as a National Elite.” In Political Elites and Social Change, ed. M.M. Czudnowski. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982. Kind, Rep. Ron. Interview by Author. Tape Recording. Washington, DC. June 2, 2009. Kirkpatrick, Jeanne. Political Women. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Lawless, Jennifer L. “Politics of Presence: Women in the House and Symbolic Representation.” Political Research Quarterly 57, no.1 (2004): 88–99. ———.“Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post September 11th Era.” Political Science Quarterly 53, no.3 (2004b): 479–490. ———. “Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for Women in Politics” Politics and Gender 5, no.1 (2008): 70–80. Lawless, Jennifer and Richard L. Fox. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Lawless, Jennifer and Kathryn Pearson. “The Primary Reason for Women’s UnderRepresentation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70, no. 1 (2008): 67–82. Lefton, Terry. (2009). “Some of the Interest in the New Sports Q Scores Isn’t at the Top.” Sports Business Journal (June 28, 2009): 8. Mansbridge, Jane. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61, no.3 (1999): 628–57. Kiefer, Heather Mason. “What Do Americans See in Title IX’s Future?,” Gallup Brain. January 28, 2003. McDonagh, Eileen. “Political Citizenship and Democratization: The Gender Paradox,” American Political Science Review 3, No. 96 (2002): 535–552. McMillen, Rep. Charles Thomas. Interview by Author. Phone Interview. Boston, MA. June 26, 2009. Meisel, J.H., ed. Pareto and Mosca. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965. Messner, Michael A. Out of Play: Critical Essays on Gender and Sport. Albany: SUNY Press, 2007. Michels, Robert. Political Parties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1958. Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Moore, Gwen. “Women in Elite Positions: Insiders or Outsiders?” Sociological Forum 3, no. 4 (1988): 566–585. Mosca, Gaetano. The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935.

82

Bibliography

Nadel, S.F. “The Concept of Social Elites.” International Social Science Bulletin 8 (1956): 413–424. National Women’s Law Center; Quick Facts on Women and Girls in Athletics, 2004. NCAA Gender-Equity Report—2005–06. “NCAA urges federal government to rescind Title IX clarification.” NCAA press release, June 22, 2005. Nelson, Mariah Burton. Are We Winning Yet?: How Women Are Changing Sports and Sports Are Changing Women. New York: Random House Publishing, 1991. “New Nationwide Research Finds: Successful Women Business Executives Don’t Just Talk a Good Game . . . They Play(ed) One” New York, February 4, 2002, The Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 2003. Niven, David. The Missing Majority: The Recruitment of Women as State Legislative Candidates. Wesport, CT: Praeger, 1998. O’Reilly, N. J. and Braedley, L.A. “Celebrity athletes and athletic clothing design: branding female tennis players,” Int. J. Sport Management and Marketing, 3, Nos. 1, 2 (2008): 119–139. Osborne, Rep. Thomas. Interview by author. Phone interview. Boston, MA, May 7, 2009. Palmer, Barbara and Dennis Simon. Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling. New York: Routledge Press, 2006. Pareto, Vilfredo. The Mind and Society. New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1935. Parry, Geraint. Political Elites. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969. Pearson, Eric. “Ruling on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.” College Sports Council, 2003. Putnam, Robert. The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. “The Role of Gender in Descriptive Representation.” Political Research Quarterly 48, no.3 (1995): 599–612. Sanbonmatsu, Kira. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46, no.1 (2002): 20–34. Seltzer, Richard, Jody Newman, and Melissa Leighton. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in US Elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishing, 1997. Shapiro, Virginia. The Political Integration of Women: Roles, Socialization, and Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1983. Smith, Eric R. A. N. and Richard Fox. “The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates in Congress.” Political Science Quarterly 54 (2001): 205–221. Smith, Lissa, ed. Nike is a Goddess: The History of Women in Sports. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1998. Solomon, David J. “Conduction Web-Based Surveys,” ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. College Park, MD, Dec. 2001. Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making. New York: WW Norton, 2002.

Bibliography

83

Stone, George, Matthew Joseph, and Michael Jones. “An Exploratory Study on the Use of Sports Celebrities in Advertising: A Content Analysis.” Sports Marketing Quarterly 12, no.2 (2003): 94–102. Strauss, Valerie and Allen, Mike. “Panel Named to Study Title IX: Law’s Fairness to be Examined.” The Washington Post: p.27, 2002. Suggs, Welch. A Place on the Team: The Triumph and Tragedy of Title IX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Swers, Michele L. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Thomas, Sue. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. ———. “Introduction: Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, & Future, ed. Thomas, Sue and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue. Gender Consciousness and Politics. New York: Routledge, 1992. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. School Enrollment in the United States—2007. U.S. Department of Education, Secretary’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics. 2002. Open to All: Title IX at Thirty. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. 2005. Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test—Part Three. Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. 2005. User’s Guide to Developing Student Interest Surveys under Title IX (NCES 2005– 173). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2007. Intercollegiate Athletics: Recent Trends in Teams and Participants in National Collegiate Athletic Association Sports. Van Hightower, Nikki. “The Recruitment of Women for Public Office.” American Politics Quarterly (1977): 301–314. Washington, Robert E., and David Karen. “Sport and Society.” Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001): 187–212. Watts, Rep. J. C. Interview by author. Phone interview. Boston, MA, July 27, 2009. Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. Running As a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1994. Zanutto, Elaine. “Web & E-mail Surveys,” at www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~zanutto/ Annenburg2001/docs.websurbeys01.pdf, accessed March 1, 2006. Zimbalist, Andrew. “GAO Report on Intercollegiate Athletic Participation Belies Title IX Critics.” Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 2007. ———.“Numbers Show It’s Time to Start Playing by the Title IX Rules Again.” Street and Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 2006. Zweigenhaft, Richard L., and G. William Domhoff. Diversity in the Power Elite: Have Women and Minorities Reached the Top? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.

Index

athlete, 10–17; as celebrity, 13–17; as role model, 16–17 athletic participation, 34–37, 44; amateur, 34; candidate, 34; candidate family member, 34; coaching, 34; gender, 44; professional, 34; significance of, 36–37

female athlete 17–19; as economic power, 17–18; as political power, 18 female political leadership, 21–28; media effect on, 24; money effects on, 24; political parties effects on, 23–24; structural obstacles to, 22, 66–67; term limits, 22–23

Boston Red Sox, 12 Bunning, Jim, 2

Hamm, Mia, 17–18 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie, 40

Café Society, 14. See Mills, C. Wright Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, 52, 54–57 Conwell, Scott, 38 Cox, John 40

Inslee, Jay, 42 Johnson, Erving “Magic,” 16 Jordan, Michael, 15–16

Dallas Cowboys, 12

Keller, Susan, 10, 14 Kind, Ron, 37–39, 41

elites, 9–14; athletic, 9, 13–14; celebrity, 9, 13; economic, 9,11,13; political, 9–10, 13; symbolic, 14 Enzi, Mike, 41

labor statistics, athletics, 11 Ladies Professional Golf Association, 17 Largent, Steve, 2 Los Angeles Lakers, 12

85

86

Index

LPGA. See Ladies Professional Golf Association

Ruppersberger, Dutch, 40 Ryun, Jim, 65

Madden, John, 15 Major League Baseball, 34 McGuire, Mark, 16 McMillen, C. Thomas (Tom), 41, 44 military experience, 35 Mills, C. Wright, 10, 14 MLB. See Major League Baseball

Q Score, 15

National Basketball Association, 12, 34 National Football League, 12 National Wrestling Coaches Association, 52, 57 NBA. See National Basketball Association New York Knicks, 12 New York Yankees, 12 NFL. See National Football League Northup, Anne Meagher, 3 NWCA. See National Wrestling Coaches Association The Ohio State University, 13 Olympic Games, 13 Osborne, Tom, 2, 42–43 Paige, Rod, 52 Phelps, Michael, 16 professional sports, 12–13; economic value of, 12

Smart, Don, 37 social eligibility pool, 4–5, 25–28, 69–70; athletics as criteria of, 28–29; effects of Title IX on, 60–61 Stone, Deborah, 2 Swoops, Cheryl, 17 Tillman, Pat, 16 Title IX, 1; college football, 72–73; compliance, 50–51, 57–59; court decisions based on, 53; criticisms of, 52–54; effects on women’s sports, 17; history of, 49–50 University of Florida, 13 University of Texas, 13 US Department of Labor, 11 Vick, Michael, 16 Watts, J.C., 2, 33, 38–44, 71 Williams, Serena, 17 Williams, Venus, 16–17 Woods, Tiger, 15–16

Level Playing Field for All?: Female Political Leadership and Athletics

Playing The Field

Playing The Field

Playing the Field

US Financial Regulation and the Level Playing Field (International Political Economy)

Playing the Field

Tax Co-operation: Towards a Level Playing Field

A Level Playing Field: School Finance in the Northeast

Tax Co-operation: Towards a level playing Field

The Language of Female Leadership

The Language of Female Leadership

School Health, Nutrition and Education for all: Levelling the Playing Field (Cabi Publishing)

Transforming Local Political Leadership

Transforming Local Political Leadership

Malay Political Leadership

It's All In The Playing

Eros and Greek Athletics

A Level Playing Field: African American Athletes and the Republic of Sports

And Dignity for All: Unlocking Greatness with Values-Based Leadership

Playing For Keeps

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Keeps

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Real

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Keeps

Playing for Pizza

Playing for First

Level Playing Field for All?: Female Political Leadership and Athletics

Playing The Field

Playing The Field

Playing the Field

US Financial Regulation and the Level Playing Field (International Political Economy)

Playing the Field

Tax Co-operation: Towards a Level Playing Field

A Level Playing Field: School Finance in the Northeast

Tax Co-operation: Towards a level playing Field

The Language of Female Leadership

The Language of Female Leadership

School Health, Nutrition and Education for all: Levelling the Playing Field (Cabi Publishing)

Transforming Local Political Leadership

Transforming Local Political Leadership

Malay Political Leadership

It's All In The Playing

Eros and Greek Athletics

A Level Playing Field: African American Athletes and the Republic of Sports

And Dignity for All: Unlocking Greatness with Values-Based Leadership

Playing For Keeps

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Keeps

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Real

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Pizza

Playing for Keeps

Playing for Pizza

Playing for First

Recommend Documents